United States of America v. Cathcart et al

Filing 169

ORDER Re Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order. Signed by Judge Hamilton on March 20, 2009. (pjhlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. CHARLES CATHCART, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ On November 19, 2008, the court referred all discovery matters in this case to Magistrate Judge Spero for resolution pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1. On February 25, 2009, Magistrate Judge Spero issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendant Robert J. Nagy's motions to compel. On March 5, 2009, the United States ("plaintiff") filed objections to this ruling. Where, as here, a Magistrate Judge's ruling addresses a non-dispositive matter, the district judge "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2, the court may not grant a motion objecting to a Magistrate Judge's order without first giving the opposing party an opportunity to brief the matter. See Civ. L.R. 72-2. Having carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Spero's order and having considered plaintiff's objections thereto, the court hereby orders further briefing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. Defendants shall each file a brief, not to exceed five (5) pages, or a notice of joinder or statement of non-opposition, no later than March 27, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 20, 2009 _________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. C 07-4762 PJH ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?