Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00131/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GE PROPERTY & CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Pennsylvania corporation,

NO. CIV. S 04-0131 MCE DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS

INSURANCE COMPANY, a Kansas

corporation,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On February 25, 2005, Plaintiff GE Property & Casualty

Insurance Company (“GE”) filed a motion for reconsideration of

the Magistrate Judge’s February 16, 2005 order granting Defendant

Universal Underwriters Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) motion

to compel. For the reasons set forth below, GE’s motion is

DENIED. 

On a motion for reconsideration of a magistrate judge’s

ruling, the district court will set aside or modify any part of

Case 2:04-cv-00131-MCE -DAD Document 43 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

 Request #1: “Your entire claim file(s) RELATING TO claim 1

number M020195771-M13.” Request #14: “ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO

the decision to settle with Sean Morris in the UNDERLYING

ACTION.” (Def.’s Req. for Prod. of Docs at 4:15, 6:3.)

2

the ruling that is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (2005); E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-303(f) (2005). A

ruling is "clearly erroneous" only when "the reviewing court on

the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction

that a mistake has been committed." U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333

U.S. 364, 395(1948)). “This standard plainly does not entitle a

reviewing court to reverse the finding of the trier of fact

simply because it is convinced that it would have decided the

case differently.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470

U.S. 564, 573 (1985).

First, it was not clearly erroneous for the Magistrate Judge

to order production of documents responsive to Universal’s

Request For Production Numbers 1 and 14 (“1" and “14"). It is 1

evident from the papers submitted to the Court that both GE and

Universal had raised issues with regard to 1 and 14. See (Def.’s

Req. for Prod. of Docs at 4:15, 6:3); (Def.’s Mot to Compel at

1:24, Ex. A); (Joint Statement at 7:27-8:5, 9:9-19, 10:4-7,

12:10); (Tr. of Proc. Before the Mag. Judge at 6:12, 6:16, 7:8,

11:2-3, 17:24, 18:4-5). Based on the foregoing, and the fact

that Plaintiffs did not present any case law in support of their

argument in this regard, the Court is not “left with a definite

and firm conviction” that the Magistrate Judge made a mistake by

crafting an order responsive to the papers submitted to him. 

Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573.

Further, the Magistrate Judge did not commit clear error or

Case 2:04-cv-00131-MCE -DAD Document 43 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

 It is not this Court’s job to overturn the Magistrate 2

Judge simply because we might have weighed the various interests

differently; instead, we must ascertain whether the order was

contrary to law. Rivera v. Nibco, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th

Cir. 2004). 

3

act contrary to law in ordering GE to produce documents that

constitute opinion work product. The Magistrate Judge correctly

noted the protections afforded to attorney work product and

determined that the protections did not apply in this case. 

(Mag. Order at 6:13-8:13). See Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 1992). The mere fact that 2

Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s decision is

inconsequential, particularly since this Court’s own “clearly

erroneous” standard of review does not extend to changing the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling on grounds it may have reached a

different result. See Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573. 

Lastly, the Magistrate Judge did not commit clear error or

act contrary to law by ordering GE to produce documents

containing attorney-client communications. Although GE contends

that the cases cited by the Magistrate Judge are “clearly

distinguishable” from the present case, that contention is

incorrect. (Pl’s. Req. for Recons. at 22:11). The propositions

set forth by the Magistrate Judge are supported by the cases

cited in the order. See (Mag. Order at 3:4-6:4.) In accordance

with the cases cited, the Magistrate Judge set forth legal

propositions and properly analyzed the facts of this case. On

the other hand, GE’s motion provides only an inconsequential

overview of the cases cited by the Magistrate Judge. Thus, there

is no evidence that the Magistrate Judge committed error or acted

Case 2:04-cv-00131-MCE -DAD Document 43 Filed 04/19/05 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

4

contrary to law. 

Because this Court is not left with a definite and firm

conviction that the Magistrate Judge committed a mistake in

granting Universal’s motion to compel, GE’s motion for

reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00131-MCE -DAD Document 43 Filed 04/19/05 Page 4 of 4