M.R. v. Federal Correctional Institution "FCI" Dublin

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 || M.R., ET AL., Case No. 4:22-cv-5137-YGR 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL 7 ORDER Vv. 8 Re: Dkt. No. 179 UNITED STATES, ET AL., ° Defendants. 10 1] On March 27, 2024, plaintiffs filed their Motion for Relief from Non-dispositive Pretrial 12 || Order (Dkt. No. 179), seeking relief from Magistrate Judge Tse’s March 13, 2024 Order 13 || Permitting Experts to Enter BOP Facilities to Conduct Evaluations on Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 170). 14 || The Court having considered the motion and all related papers, DENIES the motion for relief. 15 A motion for relief from a non-dispositive order should only be granted when the moving 16 || party establishes that the non-dispositive order by the magistrate judge is clearly erroneous or 17 || contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th 18 || Cir.1991) (“the magistrate’s decision on a non-dispositive issue will be reviewed by the district 19 ||judge under the clearly erroneous standard”); Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. C-11-2709 20 |} EMC, 2013 WL 841334, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 6, 2013) (same). “In finding that the magistrate 21 ||judge’s decision is ‘clearly erroneous,’ the Court must arrive at a definite and firm conviction that 22 ||a mistake has been committed.” Barnes & Noble , 2013 WL 841334 at *1 (internal citations and 23 || quotations omitted). This standard of review is extremely deferential. /d. 24 The Court finds that plaintiffs have not satisfied its burden under Rule 72(a) of Federal 25 || Rules of Civil Procedure to show that Magistrate Judge Tse’s order was “clearly erroneous or [] 26 || contrary to law.” 27 In ruling on the motion to permit expert evaluations, Magistrate Judge Tse considered 28 numerous competing proposed orders, oral arguments presented, and this Court’s prior order

1 || requiring reciprocal evaluations. 2 The order issued by Magistrate Judge Tse amply balances the needs of all parties and the 3 || requirements of Rule 35. As the government notes in its opposition, Magistrate Judge Tse’s order 4 || already permits government evaluation of individual plaintiffs only if that individual does not opt 5 || to forgo prior evaluation with their own expert. Thus, any plaintiff who does not wish to place their 6 || mental state at issue in the case can avoid evaluation altogether. Second, plaintiffs fail to raise any 7 reason why Magistrate Judge Tse’s order was “clearly erroneous or [] contrary to law.” Fed. R. 8 || Civ. P. 72(a). 9 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Order is DENIED. 10 This order terminates Dkt. No. 179. 1] IT Is SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: August 1, 2024 4 noted AL. lee ome 14 ONNE GONZAFEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28