White v. Smyers et al

Filing 87

ORDER granting 82 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/26/15: This case is referred to the magistrate judge for consideration of the merits of Plaintiff's request. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WALTER HOWARD WHITE,

No. 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC-P

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

SMYERS, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

On December 16, 2014, the magistrate judge issued an order denying as moot

18

Plaintiff Walter Howard White’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for a sixty-day extension of discovery

19

deadlines. See ECF No. 78. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,

20

ECF No. 82. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.

21

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld

22

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff requested

23

an extension of discovery deadlines. ECF No. 65. The magistrate judge granted the

24

request on October 14, 2014, and the discovery period was extended by sixty (60) days.

25

ECF No. 68 at 7. Consequently, the parties had until December 2, 2014, to serve any

26

requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36, and until February 2,

27

2015, to serve discovery responses. On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff requested a

28

second sixty-day extension of discovery deadlines. ECF No. 77. On December 17,
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

2014, the magistrate judge denied the request as moot on the grounds that the Court
had previously allowed the parties to “conduct discovery until February 2, 2015.” ECF
No. 78 at 1. However, a review of Plaintiff’s second request clearly demonstrates that he
was requesting an extension of the deadline to propound additional discovery requests
beyond the December 2, 2014, deadline. ECF No. 77 at 26-27.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request was not moot and his Motion for Reconsideration,
ECF No. 82, is GRANTED. This case is referred to the magistrate judge for
consideration of the merits of Plaintiff’s request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2015

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2