(PC) Jones v. Shute

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01384
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCELL JONES, No. 2:22-cv-01384-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER

14 MICHELLE SHUTE, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16

17 On March 1, 2024, Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes issued an order granting 18 in part a Defendants’ Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff Marcell Jones now 19 seek reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order. (ECF No. 40.) 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may object to a non- 21 dispositive order issued by a Magistrate Judge within fourteen days of the order 22 being served. Orders of a magistrate judge addressing discovery motions are non- 23 dispositive and thus subject to the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of 24 review. Rockwell Intern., Inc. v. Pos-A-Traction Indus., Inc., 712 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th 25 Cir. 1983); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also L.R. 303(f). “A magistrate judge's 26 decision is contrary to law if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an 27 element of an applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, 28 case law, or rules of procedure.” Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc., 1 No. 17-cv-01515-KJM-AC, 2022 WL 4664179, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) (cleaned 2 | up). A factual decision is clearly erroneous when the court is “left with the definite and 3 | firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (internal citations and 4 | quotation makes omitted). “Specifically, as to discovery matters, magistrate judges 5 || are given broad discretion and their decisions on such matters should not be 6 | overruled absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” Swenson v. Siskiyou County, 7 | No. 08-cv-01675-FCD-CMK, 2010 WL 2574099, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2010). 8 Plaintiff failed to file the present motion for reconsideration within the fourteen 9 | days required by Rule 72(a). Regardless, the Magistrate Judge's decision in granting 10 | Defendants’ Motion to Compel was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 40) is DENIED. This 12 | matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings. 13 14 IT Is SO ORDERED. 15 | Dated: _ February 13, 2025 “Darel A CDbnetto Hon. Daniel alabretta 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28