IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 8, 2012
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
PLAINTIFF, DELFINA OCHOA, MARIBEL OCHOA, JOSE OCHOA, AND GUADALUPE MARTINEZ,
GIUMARRA VINEYARDS CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-10,
ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF- INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 80) AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) RECONSIDERATION (DOC.) NO. 81 AS REDUNDANT (Doc. No. 81)
On February 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff-Intervenors' motion for discovery. See Doc. No. 78. On February 20, 2012, Plaintiff-Intervenors timely filed a request for reconsideration of that order. See Doc. No. 80; Local Rule 303(b). Per Local Rule 303(d), Defendants were required to file an opposition by February 27, 2012. Defendants did not do so. Nevertheless, the Court finds that a response from Defendants would be beneficial, and will therefore order Defendants to file either an opposition or notice of non-opposition. Additionally, on February 29, 2012, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a formal motion for reconsideration of the February 6 order. See Doc. No. 81. The brief for the "motion" for reconsideration is identical to the brief for the "request" for reconsideration. Cf. Doc. No. 80 with Doc. No. 81. Because the "motion" for reconsideration is redundant, the Court will deny that motion for administrative purposes only. The denial of the "motion" for reconsideration (Doc. No. 81) will have no effect on the Court's resolution of "request" for reconsideration (Doc. No. 80).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant shall file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff-Intervenors' request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 80) on or by March 15, 2012;*fn1 and
2. Plaintiff-Intervenors' motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 81) is DENIED as redundant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE