Furnace v. Knuckles et al

Filing 283

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court, having reviewed the papers filed in support of the motion and having fully considered the matter, denies the motion, for the reason that CDCR has failed to show the subject order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 12, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015)

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 MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

16

/

17
Before the Court is the “Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of

18
19

Magistrate Judge,” filed June 9, 2015, by the California Department of Corrections and

20

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), by which CDCR seeks relief from a nondispositive discovery order

21

issued by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte requiring CDCR to produce, inter alia, (1)

22

“documents relating to [p]laintiff contained in third party internal affairs files”; (2) “limited

23

portions of the [facility] map [that] are relevant to [p]laintiff[’s] claims”; and (3) “protocols for

24

responding to alarms” (see Order Regarding Outstanding Issues, filed April 23, 2015 at 5,

25

8, 9).

26

The Court, having reviewed the papers filed in support of the motion1 and having

27
28

1

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”).

1

fully considered the matter, hereby DENIES the motion, for the reason that CDCR has

2

failed to show the subject order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C

3

636(b)(1)(A) (providing district court may reconsider magistrate judge’s order where it has

4

been shown to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”).

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated: June 12, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2