(PC) Spencer v. Lopez ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No. 1:20-cv-01203-JLT-BAK (SKO) (PC) 11 EDWARD B. SPENCER, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING 13 v. (Doc. 49; Doc. 52) 14 D. LOPEZ, 15 Defendant. 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Spencer filed a “Motion to Strike His Deposition from the Records.” (Doc. 40.) Lopez 18 filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 41.) Spencer did not file a reply. The assigned magistrate 19 judge issued an order denying Spencer’s motion to strike deposition. (Doc. 49.) Following an 20 extension of time, Spencer timely filed objections to the magistrate judge’s order pursuant to Rule 21 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 52.) 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that non-dispositive pretrial 24 matters may be referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned 25 district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (a); see also Loc. R. 303(c). The district judge shall modify or 26 set aside any part of the magistrate judge’s order which is “found to be clearly erroneous or 27 contrary to law.” Loc. R. 303(f); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Discovery motions are non- 28 dispositive pretrial motions, which come within the scope of Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1 § 636(b)(1)(A). Thus, the orders of a magistrate judge addressing discovery motions are subject 2 to the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review. Rockwell Intern., Inc. v. Pos-A- 3 Traction Indus., Inc., 712 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1983). The magistrate judge’s factual 4 determinations are reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine 5 whether they are contrary to law. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 6 1984), overruled on other grounds by Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 “A magistrate judge’s decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to 8 consider an element of [the] applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, 9 case law, or rules of procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2014). 10 “[R]eview under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential, requiring a definite 11 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. 12 Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks 13 omitted); see also Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 Spencer argues the magistrate judge’s denial of his motion to strike his deposition is 16 erroneous because the magistrate judge “failed to determine whether the Lopez had presented 17 sufficient evidence to mailing to invoke the presumption of receipt, and if so, whether Spencer 18 has presented sufficient evidence of non-receipt to rebut the presumption.” (Doc. 52 at 2.) 19 A review of the magistrate judge’s factual determinations reveals no clear error. 20 McConney, 728 F.2d at 1200-01. Lopez submitted a declaration with his opposition to Spencer’s 21 motion to strike which demonstrates Lopez properly sent notice of the deposition to Spencer. 22 (Doc. 41 at 10.) The magistrate judge’s legal conclusions are not contrary to law. They do not 23 apply an incorrect legal standard, fail to consider an element of the applicable standard, or fail to 24 apply or misapply relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure. Martin v. Loadholt, 2014 25 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2014). Consequently, the Court finds no basis to disturb the 26 magistrate judge’s decision to deny Spencer’s motion to strike his deposition. 27 IV. ORDER 28 For the reasons set forth above, 1 1. Spencer’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 52) of the magistrate judge’s May 31, 2 2022 order is DENIED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _ August 12, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:20-cv-01203

Filed Date: 8/12/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024