Lakes v. Bath & Body Works, LLC

Filing 203

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 08/17/2021 DENYING 199 Motion for Reconsideration. (Rodriguez, E)

Case 2:16-cv-02989-MCE-AC Document 203 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CRYSTAL LAKES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-02989-MCE-AC

v.

ORDER

BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC.,

15

Defendant.

16
In bringing the present Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 199), Plaintiff

17
18

Crystal Lakes (“Plaintiff”) asks this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge’s

19

December 29, 2020, Order (ECF No. 198) denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

20

Conduct Limited Discovery. ECF No. 178. Plaintiff’s Motion urges the Court to reopen

21

discovery, which has now been closed for over three years, on grounds that Defendant

22

Bath & Body Works, LLC, (“Defendant”) has not been forthcoming in representing that

23

no documents evidencing the “silent recall” of three-wick candles existed. On July 9,

24

2021, (ECF No. 202) the Court already rejected the same arguments in declining

25

Plaintiff’s earlier reconsideration request (ECF No. 175) as to the Magistrate Judge’s

26

denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause re Contempt and for Sanctions.

27

ECF No. 163. The present motion essentially seeks additional discovery on the same

28

///
1

Case 2:16-cv-02989-MCE-AC Document 203 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 3

1

grounds, but under the different procedural guise of actually reopening discovery instead

2

of ordering discovery as an adjunct to ordering contempt and/or imposing sanctions.

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

5

Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and

6

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate

7

Judge’s decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

8

committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for

9

So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the

10

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

11

Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence

12

differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141

13

(9th Cir. 1997).

14

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

15

decisions outlined above were clearly erroneous. The Magistrate Judge correctly notes

16

that no evidence has been presented to suggest that “re-opening the long-closed

17

discovery phase of this case would be fruitful.” ECF No. 198, 6:24-26. In the absence of

18

any such evidence justifying additional discovery, mere conjecture as to what discovery

19

might show is insufficient to demonstrate the good cause needed to reopen discovery at

20

this juncture. In addition, the issue has already been addressed and rejected in prior

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1
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

Case 2:16-cv-02989-MCE-AC Document 203 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 3

1

motion proceedings in any event. Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 199)

2

is accordingly DENIED.2

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 17, 2021

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

To the extent Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
December 29, 2020, Order (ECF No. 198), those objections are OVERRULED.

3