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.

Atpac, Inc., A California Corporation v. Aptitude Solutions

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 18, 2011

ATPAC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
APTITUDE SOLUTIONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, COUNTY OF NEVADA, A CALIFORNIA COUNTY, AND GREGORY J. DIAZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS.

ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Order of May 2, 2011 (Docket No. 159), denying plaintiff's request for forensic examination of defendants' and their counsels' computer systems to assure production of documents which the court has ordered produced.

A district court must defer to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive order unless it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Grimes v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). The court cannot determine from plaintiff's request exactly what relief it seeks. To the extent that plaintiff asks this court to overturn the Magistrate Judge's Order denying its request for a forensic examination, that Order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

To the extent that plaintiff may be seeking to strike the sentence in the Order stating that "the record does not support plaintiff's assertion that defendants have willfully and repeatedly violated the court's discovery order," that sentence was dicta referring to a specific discovery order and does not bind this court or the Magistrate Judge with regard to any other motion or other matter that may arise in this case.

Finally, to the extent that plaintiff complains that the two-page letter brief limit for discovery disputes imposed by the Magistrate Judge was arbitrary, plaintiff cannot have been prejudiced by that limit because the Magistrate Judge could have asked for further briefing if he believed it was necessary or appropriate.

Because the court does not require further briefing on plaintiff's request, the court's Minute Order (Docket No. 164) is set aside.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's May 2, 2011, Order be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

20110518

© 1992-2011 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.