The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 84) asking this Court to reconsider various portions of a recent discovery order (ECF No. 83). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Request is DENIED.
In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review set forth in Local Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Under this standard, the Court must accept the magistrate judge's decision unless it has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the magistrate judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997).
All but one of Plaintiff's challenges here are to the magistrate judge's refusal to order the taking of additional or reconvened depositions because there was insufficient time to conduct those proceedings prior to the July 21, 2011, non-expert discovery cutoff. On the same day Plaintiff filed her instant Request, this Court denied Plaintiff's then-pending request to amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order to extend the above deadline. Accordingly, given the fact that non-expert discovery is now closed, the magistrate judge did not clearly err in refusing to order the taking of additional depositions.
Plaintiff's remaining challenge is to the magistrate judge's denial of Plaintiff's request for an order directing Defendant Town of Paradise to supplement its Amended Rule 26 Disclosure Statement regarding the anticipated testimony of a potential witness, Yvette Streeter. More specifically, Plaintiff contends Defendant's disclosure statement was incomplete, necessitating the further disclosure of additional information.
The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff's request as untimely, however, and Plaintiff makes no real argument, nor points this Court to any relevant authority, indicating that the magistrate judge clearly erred in reaching his conclusion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 84) is hereby DENIED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...