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)

Download PDF
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?