Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

222 ORDER Denying P Recon

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 3

David F. Jadwin v. Kern County: 1:07-cv-26 in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. This was a 2009 federal employment lawsuit that went to a bench and jury trial resulting in a unanimous verdict and significant judgment for the plaintiff employee. Issues involved violations of medical leave and disability discrimination laws, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process violation. Plaintiff was represented by Eugene Lee, a Los Angeles, California employment lawyer.

More Info
									Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 222

Filed 09/11/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendants. vs. Plaintiff, DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-F-07-026 OWW/TAG ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT COURT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING (Doc. 214) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On September 1, 2008, Plaintiff timely filed a request for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order filed on August 22, 2008 (Doc. 207). To the extent Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration challenges the appointment of a special master, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED as moot. By Order filed on September 5, 2008,

the Magistrate Judge denied Defendants’ request for the appointment of a special master (Doc. 220). Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s issuance of a protective order against Plaintiff’s counsel as 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 222

Filed 09/11/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

well as Defendants’ counsel and the denial of sanctions against Defendants’ counsel based on alleged actions or inaction by Plaintiff’s counsel. Pursuant to Rule 72-303, a District Judge upholds a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a referred matter unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See Rule 72(a), Federal The “clearly

Rules of Civil Procedure; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

erroneous” standard applies to a Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact. Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, “A findings is ‘clearly erroneous’

508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 622. The

“contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal determinations by the Magistrate Judge. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D.Cal.2000); Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3rd Cir.1992). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to FDIC v.

apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F.Supp.2d 159, 163

(E.D.N.Y.2006). Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is DENIED. The

record establishes that the conduct of both attorneys during depositions is at fault and that the protective order issued by the Magistrate Judge is well within her discretion and necessary to manage the process of discovery in this action. 2 The mutual

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 222

Filed 09/11/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

protective order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions were denied without prejudice by the Magistrate Judge because Plaintiff failed to document the requested amounts. or contrary to law. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 668554 September 10, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE These rulings also are not clearly erroneous

3


								
To top