Ingenuity 13 LLC

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/19/2012 DENYING petitioner's 25 Motion for Reconsideration of Judge's 24 Ruling. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

In the Matter of a Petition By

12

INGENUITY 13, LLC,

13

Petitioner.

14
15
16
17

Case No. 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER

This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(1).
On March 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed an order (the

20
21

“Order”) vacating an order granting Ingenuity 13, LLC’s

22

(“Petitioner”) petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27

23

(“Rule 27”) (Doc. # 24).

24

present Request for Reconsideration (Doc. # 25) seeking

25

reconsideration of the Order.

26

Inc.; Road Runner Holdco, LLC; SBC Internet Services, Inc.; and

27

Verizon Online LLC (“Respondents”) oppose reconsideration (Doc. #

28

26).

On March 23, 2012, Petitioner filed the

Respondents Cox Communications,

1

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303 govern the

2

standard for a Motion for Reconsideration.

3

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

4

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

5

law.”

6

The district court “may

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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

7

and Local Rule 72-303, this Court has conducted a de novo review of

8

the Order vacating grant of Petitioner’s Rule 27 petition and

9

denying issuance of the same.

10
11

For the reasons given below,

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Petitioner argues that the Order exceeded the Magistrate

12

Judge’s statutory authority because it purportedly quashed

13

subpoenas issued by other courts.

14

quash (Doc. ## 19, 20) filed by Doe parties.

15

pro se litigant, seeks to quash Petitioner’s Rule 27 petition, but

16

also seeks to quash an unidentified subpoena.

17

construed liberally.

18

Cir. 2010).

19

Petitioner’s Rule 27 petition, not subsequent or unrelated

20

subpoenas issued by other courts.

21

Judge did not exceed his statutory authority in granting the first

22

motion to quash.

23

arguments and language directed at Petitioner’s Rule 27 petition,

24

meaning that the Magistrate Judge was authorized to grant it as

25

well.

26

The Order granted two motions to
The first, filed by a

Pro se pleadings are

Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th

The clear object of the first motion to quash is

Accordingly, the Magistrate

The second motion to quash only contains

Petitioner next argues that Respondents lack standing to

27

challenge the petition because they are not anticipated adverse

28

parties.

Respondents argue that they do not lack standing because
2

1

Petitioner seeks to take discovery of them, and they have standing

2

to challenge the Rule 27 petition on that basis.

3

numerous cases permitting non-parties to challenge Rule 27

4

petitions.

5

(9th Cir. 1995).

6

challenging government action of which he is the object has

7

constitutional standing.

See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

8

U.S. 555, 561–62 (1992).

In this case, Petitioner moves for a

9

court order compelling production of information held by

Respondents cite

See e.g., State of Nev. v. O'Leary, 63 F.3d 932, 934

10

Respondents.

11

Additionally, it is well settled that a party

Respondents therefore have standing to oppose such an

order.
Finally, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Order denying

12
13

the Rule 27 petition on the ground that it is clearly contrary to

14

law.

15

controlling and persuasive Rule 27 precedent and determines that

16

Rule 27 does not apply to the type of discovery sought by

17

Petitioner.

18

confronted with Rule 27 petitions have reached similar conclusions.

19

See Wilkins v. Cnty. of Alameda, No. C 10-3090 LHK (PR), 2011 WL

20

768646, 0–1, Slip Copy (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011); In re Landry-

21

Bell, 232 F.R.D. 266, 267 (W.D. La. 2005).

22

finds that the Order is not clearly contrary to law.

The Magistrate Judge’s Order comprehensively reviews

Order, at 5-12.

Further, other district courts

Accordingly, the Court

23
24

ORDER

25

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Reconsider

26
27
28

the Magistrate Judge’s Ruling is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2012
3

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE