White v. Smyers et al

Filing 180

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/7/2016 DENYING 157 Motion for Reconsideration. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WALTER HOWARD WHITE,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2868-MCE-AC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

D. SMYERS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

In bringing the present Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 157), Plaintiff Walter

19

Howard White (“Plaintiff”) asks this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge’s April 16,

20

2015 Order (ECF No. 126) which adjudicated various requests in this matter made by

21

both Plaintiff and Defendants. Said Order made numerous findings, and included rulings

22

that1) granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ protective order requests as to 71

23

of Plaintiff’s 99 document production requests, 2) granted in part and denied in part

24

Plaintiff’s request for issuance of 10 subpoena duces tecum; 3) denied Plaintiff’s

25

previously rejected request to file a Second Amended Complaint; and 4) denied

26

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. 1 The Order further admonished Plaintiff

27
28

1

While Plaintiff argues that his May 10, 2015 stay request was never adjudicated, the Magistrate
Judge’s July 14, 2015 Order (ECF No. 153) denied Plaintiff’s May 18, 2015 request in that regard (ECF
No. 143).

1

1

from filing excessive documents that have unduly encumbered the action and consumed

2

an inordinate amount of the court’s limited resources.

3

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the assigned judge shall apply

4

the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule

5

303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 636(b)(1)(A).2 Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate Judge’s

7

decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

8

Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508

9

U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate

10

Judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the Court will

11

not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence differently.

12

Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir.

13

1997).

14

After reviewing the entire file, this Court cannot say that the Magistrate Judge’s

15

decision outlined above were clearly erroneous. As the Court already noted with respect

16

to Plaintiff’s additional reconsideration request (see Order, ECF No. 179, filed February

17

4, 2016) the Magistrate Judge’s decision carefully weighed the competing concerns in

18

this matter and offered a well-reasoned rationale for the determinations made therein.

19

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 157) is accordingly DENIED.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 7, 2016

22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the district court judge to “modify or set aside any
portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Similarly, under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the
magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

2