Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-00328 JSW

ORDER DENYING OBJECTION

AND AFFIRMING THE

DISCOVERY ORDER

Now before the Court are the objections filed by defendant-intervenors Christian

Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricans and Gynecologists, the

Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants, and by Alliance of Catholic Healthcare

(collectively “Defendant-Intervenors”) to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James’ Discovery

Order dated September 12, 2006 (the “Discovery Order”). Having carefully reviewed

Defendant-Intervenors’ papers and considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority,

and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant-Intervenors’ objections and

AFFIRMS the Discovery Order.

The District Court may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate’s ruling on nondispositive pre-trial motions found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a); see also, e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir.

1991). A ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after considering the evidence, is left

with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S.

Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). 

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 106 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

After a careful review of the Discovery Order, this Court finds that the Judge James’

ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, this Court DENIES DefendantIntervenors’ Objections and AFFIRMS the Discovery Order dated September 12, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 106 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2