Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

T.B. v. Chico Unified School District

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 29, 2009

T.B., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS, PARENT, G.B., PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; JOYCE BURDETTE, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; MAUREEN DIETZ, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; DALE DURNIAK, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; CHET FRANCISCO, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; CHERI MCGUIRE, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; DAVE SCOTT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; ERIC SNEDEKER, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff's counsel seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order imposing $999.00 as a sanction for counsel's failure to allow Defendants' mental health expert to conduct a videotaped independent medical examination ("IME") of Plaintiff.

On March 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application, in which he asked the district judge to stay the magistrate judge's ruling the imposing the sanction and allowing the videotaped IME until Plaintiff could file a brief seeking to have the district judge reconsider that ruling. The district judge held a telephonic hearing on the stay application on March 31, 2009, during which the portion of the Magistrate Judge's order concerning the videotaped IME was affirmed, and Plaintiff's counsel was provided the opportunity to brief the sanction issue. However, in an order filed April 1, 2009, a portion of the Magistrate Judge's order concerning the extent to which Plaintiff's mother, G.B., was to assist the mental health expert during the IME was modified.

In light of this modification, which somewhat favored Plaintiff's position on the extent to which G.B. should be required to assist Defendants' mental health expert during Plaintiff's videotaped IME, and ambiguity existing in the record on whether Plaintiff should have had more time to seek reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's order allowing the videotaped IME, the $999.00 sanction against Plaintiff's counsel is not affirmed.

20090429

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.