(PC) Spence v. Kaur

Opinion

GERALD SPENCE, No. 2:16-cv-01828-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER G. KAUR, et al., Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gerald Spence’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration of the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s October 23, 2020 Order (ECF No. 113) granting Defendants G. Kaur and Chambers’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Request for an Extension of Time (ECF No. 112). (ECF No. 118.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s decision to grant Defendants an extension of time to oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 110). (ECF No. 118.) As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely. A party may object to a non- dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within 14 days after service of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Here, the Order was issued and served on October 23, 2020 (ECF No. 113), and Plaintiff filed his Motion on December 13, 2020 (see ECF No. 118 at 1), 54 days later.1 As such, the Motion is denied. Similarly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is rendered moot by the fact that the Motion to Compel has already been fully briefed by the parties and the magistrate judge has issued a ruling on the motion. (See ECF Nos. 114, 117, 119.) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Plaintiff fails to present any showing whatsoever that the magistrate judge’s decision to grant a 14-day extension of time was “clearly erroneous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litig., No. C 07-1882 JF (RS), 2009 WL 3613511, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009); Martinez v. Lawless, No. 1:12-CV- 01301-LJO-SKO, 2015 WL 5732549, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) (citing Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987)); E.E.O.C. v. Peters’ Bakery, 301 F.R.D. 482, 484 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Burdick v. C.I.R., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992)). For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. (ECF No. 118.) The Court affirms the magistrate judge’s Order granting Defendants an extension of time. (ECF No. 113.) DATED: January 5, 2021 1 Plaintiff’s filing date was determined pursuant to the prison mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 274 (1988).