Advanced Microtherm, Inc. v. Norman Wright Mechanical Equipment Corporation et al

Filing 867

ORDER re 861 Objection, filed by F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc.,, 859 Objection, filed by Norman Wright Mechanical Equipment Corporation. Signed by Judge James Ware on January 16, 2009. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Advanced Microtherm, Inc., et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 04-02266 JW ORDER REMANDING TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR RECONSIDERATION United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Norman Wright Mechanical Equipment Corp., et al., Defendants. / Presently before the Court are Defendants' Objections to and Requests for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Trumbull's January 12, 2009 (1) Order to Defendants to Comply with Prior Order and (2) Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Shortened Time for Hearing on Rule 26 Motion. (Docket Item Nos. 859, 861.) On January 12, 2009, Judge Trumbull issued an Order in which she continued a discovery conference based on Defendants' failure to file a discovery proposal by a January 7, 2009 deadline. (hereafter, "Jan. 12 Order," Docket Item No. 858.) Judge Trumbull also granted a motion by Plaintiffs to shorten the time for hearing a pending motion to compel. (Id.) In doing so, Judge Trumbull stated that Defendants had filed no opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to shorten time. Defendants contend that they had, in fact, filed the requisite discovery proposals and oppositions, such that Judge Trumbull's January 12 Order was in error. A district court may modify a magistrate judge's ruling on a non- dispositive matter, such as an order to compel discovery, if the order is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). 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. The Court has reviewed the docket for the presence of the disputed filings. First, the Court finds that Defendants did, in fact, file discovery proposals by the January 7, 2009 deadline. (See Docket Item No. 847.) Second, the Court finds that Defendant Norman Wright did file an opposition to Plaintiffs' administrative motion to shorten time on January 9, 2009. (See Docket Item No. 852.) Plaintiffs' motion was made on January 6, 2009, Defendant's opposition was made within the three days required by Civil Local Rule 7-11. (See Docket Item No. 844.) In light of what is reflected in the docket entries, the Court REMANDS this issue to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration of its January 12, 2009 Order. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: January 16, 2009 JAMES WARE United States District Judge 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Bruce Harry Winkelman Cassiana Aaronson David B. Abramowitz Dennis P. Fitzsimons Flora F Vigo George Fred Salamy Janette George Leonidou Jeffrey Gordon Nevin Jill Battilega Rowe John Morwick Ross John T. Williams Joseph M. Alioto Joseph Michelangelo Alioto Julie Dawn Wood Kenneth Lawrence Mahaffey Lisa Dritsas Wright Maria Giardina Mark Ewell Ellis Matthew A. Fischer Maureen Ellen McTague Merrit Jones Michael Frederick Tubach Paul B. Lahaderne Peter Michael Hart Russell F. Brasso Russell F. Brasso Stephen D. Kaus Steven Ellis Conigliaro Stuart E. Jones Theresa Driscoll Moore Thomas Charles Tagliarini Thomas H R Denver William Hugh McInerney Zane D. Negrych Dated: January 16, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 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?