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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?