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)

Download PDF
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?