ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER
This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(1).
On March 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed an order (the "Order") vacating an order granting Ingenuity 13, LLC's ("Petitioner") petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 ("Rule 27") (Doc. # 24). On March 23, 2012, Petitioner filed the present Request for Reconsideration (Doc. # 25) seeking reconsideration of the Order. Respondents Cox Communications, Inc.; Road Runner Holdco, LLC; SBC Internet Services, Inc.; and Verizon Online LLC ("Respondents") oppose reconsideration (Doc. # 26).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303 govern the 2 standard for a Motion for Reconsideration. The district court "may 3 reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that 4 the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to 5 law." 28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)A); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(f). 6
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 7 and Local Rule 72-303, this Court has conducted a de novo review of 8 the Order vacating grant of Petitioner's Rule 27 petition and 9 denying issuance of the same. For the reasons given below, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Petitioner argues that the Order exceeded the Magistrate Judge's statutory authority because it purportedly quashed subpoenas issued by other courts. The Order granted two motions to quash (Doc. ## 19, 20) filed by Doe parties. The first, filed by a pro se litigant, seeks to quash Petitioner's Rule 27 petition, but also seeks to quash an unidentified subpoena. Pro se pleadings are construed liberally. Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2010). The clear object of the first motion to quash is Petitioner's Rule 27 petition, not subsequent or unrelated subpoenas issued by other courts. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge did not exceed his statutory authority in granting the first motion to quash. The second motion to quash only contains arguments and language directed at Petitioner's Rule 27 petition, meaning that the Magistrate Judge was authorized to grant it as well.
Petitioner next argues that Respondents lack standing to challenge the petition because they are not anticipated adverse parties. Respondents argue that they do not lack standing because Petitioner seeks to take discovery of them, and they have standing 2 to challenge the Rule 27 petition on that basis. Respondents cite 3 numerous cases permitting non-parties to challenge Rule 27 4 petitions. See e.g., State of Nev. v. O'Leary, 63 F.3d 932, 934 5 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally, it is well settled that a party 6 challenging government action of which he is the object has 7 constitutional standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 8 U.S. 555, 561--62 (1992). In this case, Petitioner moves for a 9 court order compelling production of information held by Respondents. Respondents therefore have standing to oppose such an order.
Finally, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Order denying the Rule 27 petition on the ground that it is clearly contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge's Order comprehensively reviews controlling and persuasive Rule 27 precedent and determines that Rule 27 does not apply to the type of discovery sought by Petitioner. Order, at 5-12. Further, other district courts confronted with Rule 27 petitions have reached similar conclusions. See Wilkins v. Cnty. of Alameda, No. C 10-3090 LHK (PR), 2011 WL 768646, 0--1, Slip Copy (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011); In re Landry-Bell, 232 F.R.D. 266, 267 (W.D. La. 2005). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Order is not clearly contrary to law.
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Reconsider the Magistrate Judge's Ruling is DENIED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...