Entrepreneur Media, Inc.v. Smith

Filing 165

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/10/14 ORDERING For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Ruling. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC.,

12

2:10-mc-55 JAM-EFB

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

SCOTT SMITH dba ENTREPRENEUR,

15

Defendant.

16
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Scott Smith’s

17
18

(“Defendant”) Motion for Reconsideration by the District Court of

19

the Magistrate Judge’s Ruling (Doc. #163). 1

20

Entrepreneur Media, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) did not file an

21

opposition.

22

is DENIED.

Plaintiff

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion

23
I.

24

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant is a judgment debtor of Plaintiff.

25

On August 26,

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(e). No hearing was
scheduled.
1

1

2013, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to discovery

2

(Doc. #150).

3

Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 251(b), which requires

4

parties to meet and confer and create a Joint Statement Re:

5

Discovery Disagreement prior to filing a motion regarding

6

discovery (Doc. #154).

7

Judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion to

8

Compel (Doc. #162).

9

Defendant’s Local Rule 251(b) argument.

10

Defendant opposed the motion, in part, because

On November 26, 2013, the Magistrate

The Magistrate Judge did not address
Defendant seeks

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order (Doc. #163).

11
12

II.

OPINION

13

A.

Legal Standard

14

The standard for a Motion for Reconsideration is governed by

15

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 303.

The district court “may

16

reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that

17

the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to

18

law.”

19

standard of review under § 636(b)(1)(A) is highly deferential;

20

see United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 968-69 (9th

21

Cir. 2001), and does not permit the reviewing court to substitute

22

its own judgment for that of the magistrate judge’s.

23

City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir.

24

1991).

28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. L. R. 303(f).

The

Grimes v.

25

B.

Discussion

26

Defendant argues that the Magistrate Judge clearly erred by

27

failing to apply Local Rule 251(b) even though Plaintiff did not

28

comply with the rule.

Although parties are bound by the Local
2

1

Rules, the Court is not.

2

noncompliance with the Rules) with L.R. 102(d)(discretion of the

3

Court).

4

the Court in its discretion may make such orders supplementary or

5

contrary to the provisions of these Rules as it may deem

6

appropriate and in the interests of justice and case management

7

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 17.1 in a special

8

circumstance.”

9

Magistrate Judge’s discretion not to apply Local Rule 251(b).

10

Accordingly, Defendant has not demonstrated that the

11

Magistrate Judge’s ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to

12

law.”

Compare L.R. 110 (sanctions for

Local Rule 102 provides that “[u]nless contrary to law,

L.R. 102(d).

Therefore, it was within the

13
14
15

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

16

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s

17

Ruling.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 10, 2014

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3