(PS) Tafari v. Brennan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAS HEZEKIAH TAFARI, No. 2:17-cv-00113-MCE-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MEGAN J. BRENNAN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Ras Hezekiah Tafari (“Plaintiff”) seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate 18 Judge’s order, ECF No. 86, denying his Motion to Exclude Defendant Megan Brennan’s 19 (“Defendant”) undisclosed witnesses and additional documents under Federal Rule of 20 Civil Procedure 37(c), ECF No. 76.1 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion, 21 ECF No. 94, is DENIED. 22 In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the assigned judge shall apply 23 the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 24 303(f), as specifically authorized by Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under this 25 standard, the Court must accept the magistrate judge’s decision unless it has a “definite 26 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., 27 1 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless 28 otherwise noted. 1 | Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court 2 || believes the conclusions reached by the magistrate judge were at least plausible, after 3 || considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it 4 | would have weighed the evidence differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal 5 | Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997). 6 Here, Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s failure to comply with Rule 26(a) disclosure 7 || requirements prevented him from deposing witnesses and conducting discovery. ECF 8 | No. 94, at 4:18-20. However, a review of the hearing transcript on the matter shows 9 | Plaintiff deposed two witnesses and was not harmed when Defendant revealed the 10 | names of the remaining witnesses in supplemental disclosures. See Transcript, ECF 11 | No. 93, at 8. The Court thus finds that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was not clearly 12 || erroneous or contrary to law, and the May 6, 2019, Order is therefore affirmed. 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 94) is DENIED and 14 | the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 86) is AFFIRMED. 15 IT |S SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: November 4, 2019 17 UNITED STATES DISTRI 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28