Furnace v. Knuckles et al

Filing 278

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CDCR's motion is denied, without prejudice to CDCR's submitting to Magistrate Judge Laporte a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, or any other appropriate filing seeking reconsideration of the subject order. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 21, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

EDWARD T. FURNACE,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. C 09-6075 MMC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.
K. KNUCKLES, et al.,
Defendants.

16

/

17
18

Before the Court is the “Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of

19

Magistrate Judge,” filed May 18, 2015, by the California Department of Corrections and

20

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. Having considered the papers

21

filed in support of the motion,1 the Court rules as follows.

22

By its motion, CDCR seeks relief from an order issued by Magistrate Judge

23

Elizabeth D. Laporte,2 requiring CDCR to produce, inter alia, (1) “documents relating to

24

[p]laintiff contained in third party internal affairs files”; (2) “limited portions of the [facility]

25
1

26
27
28

The Court did not order a response from plaintiff. See Civil L.R. 72-2 (providing
“[u]nless otherwise ordered by the assigned District Judge, no response need be filed and
no hearing will be held concerning the motion”).
2

The above-titled matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Laporte for all
discovery disputes. (See Order Referring Discovery Matters to Magistrate Judge, filed April
5, 2012.)

1

map [that] are relevant to [p]laintiff[’s] claims”; and (3) “protocols for responding to alarms”

2

(see Order Regarding Outstanding Issues, filed April 23, 2015 (“Order”) at 5, 8, 9). The

3

motion, however, is based on evidence not presented to the Magistrate Judge, which

4

evidence, according to CDCR, has become relevant after the Order was issued.

5

Accordingly, CDCR’s motion is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to CDCR’s

6

submitting to Magistrate Judge Laporte a motion for leave to file a motion for

7

reconsideration, see Civil L.R. 7-9(b), or any other appropriate filing seeking

8

reconsideration of the subject order.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
Dated: May 21, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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