Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 280

ORDER DENYING 263 , 264 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DKT. NO. 251). Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 9/16/2015. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2015).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADIL K HIRAMANEK, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DKT. NO. 251) 13 14 L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al., Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 263, 264 15 16 On September 2, 2015, Plaintiffs Adil and Roda Hiramanek filed a Motion for Relief from 17 Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. Dkt. No. 263. Plaintiffs’ motion, filed 18 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), recites twenty-seven objections to the magistrate judge’s Order 19 Granting Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas and for Protective Order, Dkt. No. 251. The 20 magistrate judge’s order quashed nineteen of Plaintiffs’ subpoenas aimed at various court officers, 21 staff, and others. Dkt. No. 251 at 1. “In light of Plaintiffs’ history of broadly and indiscriminately 22 serving subpoenas on non-parties without any substantial basis,” the magistrate judge ordered that 23 “[f]rom this point forward, if Plaintiffs wish to serve subpoenas on any non-parties, Plaintiffs must 24 first seek leave of the court and show good cause.” Id. at 4. 25 26 Later on September 2, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a separate motion that recited the same twentyseven objections but purported to apply the legal standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), which applies 27 28 1 5:13-cv-00228-RMW ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RS 1 to the review of “dispositive motions.”1 Dkt. No. 264. As the court’s prior orders have made clear, 2 consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction is not required for discovery matters, and discovery orders 3 such as the one at issue here are not considered “dispositive.” Dkt. Nos. 240, 265; 28 U.S.C. 4 § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Plaintiffs’ “Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive 5 Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge,” Dkt. No. 264, thus applies an incorrect legal standard and is 6 duplicative of their earlier motion, Dkt. No. 263. Accordingly, the “Motion for De Novo 7 Determination,” Dkt. No. 264, is DENIED. 8 Turning to the earlier-filed Motion for Relief, Dkt. No. 263, Plaintiffs acknowledge that 9 their thirteen-page motion fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 72-2, which limits a Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge to five pages. Dkt. No. 263 at i n.1 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 (requesting “administrative relief to file this slightly oversized motion”). The court disagrees that Plaintiffs’ 12 motion is “slightly” oversized. On its face, the motion is nearly three times the length permitted by the local 13 rules, and that does not include Plaintiffs’ 28-page “declaration” in support of the motion, Dkt. No. 263-1, 14 which overflows with arguments and citations. See Civ. L.R. 7-5(b) (“An affidavit or declarations may 15 contain only facts . . . and must avoid conclusions and argument.”). Future failure to follow the court’s 16 procedural rules may result in appropriate sanctions, including a refusal to review pages of motions 17 exceeding the applicable limits. See Civ. L.R. 1-4. 18 With regard to the substance of Plaintiffs’ objections, the magistrate judge’s order provided 19 multiple, independent reasons for quashing Plaintiffs’ subpoenas and granting a protective order. The court 20 finds no portion of the magistrate judge’s order that is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s order is AFFIRMED. 22 23 Dated: September 16, 2015 ______________________________________ Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge 24 25 26 1 27 28 Plaintiffs’ motion “maintains that Magistrate Judge lacks jurisdiction, but involuntarily follow[s] Civil L.R. 72-[2/3].” Dkt. No. 263 at i n.1; Dkt. No. 264 at i n.1. 2 5:13-cv-00228-RMW ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RS

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?