Heilman v. Cherniss et al
Filing
283
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/14/18 DENYING 276 Motion for Reconsideration. This Court leaves to Magistrate Judge Brennan the determination of the amount of the sanctions to be imposed against CDCR. (Coll, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,
12
2:11-cv-00042 JAM-EFB P
Plaintiff,
13
14
No.
v.
C. CHERNISS, et al.,
15
ORDER DENYING CDCR’S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Defendants.
16
Before this Court is non-party California Department of
17
18
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) Request for
19
Reconsideration (Mot., ECF No. 276) of Magistrate Judge Brennan’s
20
November 15, 2018 Order (Order, ECF No. 272) granting in part
21
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 263).
22
Magistrate Judge’s sanctions awarding attorney’s fees to
23
Plaintiff in connection with the Motion to Compel.
CDCR challenges the
A magistrate’s ruling on non-dispositive matters, such as
24
25
sanctions, must not be disturbed unless “clearly erroneous or
26
contrary to law.”
27
72(a); E.D. Local Rule 303(f).
28
///
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.
1
1
In granting the sanctions against CDCR, Magistrate Judge
2
Brennan found that CDCR’s objections to the discovery based on
3
“state law privilege” and the “contention that the protective
4
order in this case is insufficient” were “without justification.”
5
Order at 3.
6
nondisclosure was substantially justified are not persuasive.
7
This Court agrees.
CDCR’s arguments that its
Upon review, the Court does not find the Magistrate Judge’s
8
ruling sanctioning CDCR to be clearly erroneous or contrary to
9
law.
CDCR’s Request for Reconsideration is, therefore, DENIED.
10
This Court leaves to Magistrate Judge Brennan the
11
determination of the amount of the sanctions to be imposed
12
against CDCR.
13
14
Order at 4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 14, 2018
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?