Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

This Court’s Local Rule 72-303 addresses reconsideration of magistrate judge rulings, and its subjection

1

(e) provides that Local Rule 78-230's notice and briefing schedules have “no application to requests for reconsideration.” 

Subsection (e) further provides that “[no oral argument shall be allowed in the usual civil action.” Local Rule 72-303(d)

requires opposition papers within five court days. Mr. Puckett’s motion is ready to decide with passing of the opposition

deadline. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH PUCKETT, CASE NO. CV F 05-0277 LJO DLB

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

vs. (Doc. 65.)

CHIEF OF POLICE DYER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force, pro se plaintiff Joseph Puckett (“Mr.

Puckett”) belatedly seeks what this Court construes as reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s

protective order addressing Mr. Puckett’s Social Security and medical records and information. For the

reasons discussed below, this Court DENIES Mr. Puckett reconsideration of the protective order and

other related relief.1

BACKGROUND

United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck (“Judge Beck”) issued his September 4, 2007

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 71 Filed 11/21/07 Page 1 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

27

28

2

protective order (“protective order”) to address use and disclosure of Mr. Puckett’s Social Security and

medical records and information. Defense counsel had submitted for Judge Beck’s consideration the

protective order, which designates Mr. Puckett’s Social Security and medical records and information

as confidential and which institutes procedures to maintain confidentiality of the records and

information.

On October 30, 2007, Mr. Puckett filed his motion for relief from judgment, which this Court

construes to seek reconsideration of the protective order. 

DISCUSSION

Untimely Reconsideration Attempt

This Court’s Local Rule 72-303(b) addresses the timing to seek reconsideration:

Rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought

from the Court within ten (10) court days calculated from the date of service of the ruling

on the parties . . .”

The protective order was served on Mr. Puckett on September 4, 2007. Mr. Puckett delayed to

file his reconsideration papers until October 30, 2007, well after the 10-day limit. As such, his

reconsideration request is time barred.

Merits

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722

F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.

1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield,

634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514

(9th Cir. 1987). This Court’s Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party seeking reconsideration to

demonstrate “what new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). As

such, the court may only set aside those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s order that are either clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a);see also Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco,

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 71 Filed 11/21/07 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

27

28

3

951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir.1991) (discovery sanctions are non-dispositive pretrial matters that are

reviewed for clear error under Rule 72(a)). “Under this standard of review, a magistrate's order is

‘clearly erroneous’ if, after considering all of the evidence, the district court is left with the definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, and the order is ‘contrary to law’ when it fails to

apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Yent v. Baca, 2002 WL 32810316,

at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “The reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the

deciding court.” Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241. A district court is able to overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling

“‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’”

Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting

Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7 Cir. 1997)). th

Mr. Puckett makes no attempt to demonstrate error with the typical, practical protective order

which properly balances defendants’ legitimate discovery needs and confidentiality of Mr. Puckett’s

sensitive information. Mr. Puckett’s privacy comments are no more than unsubstantiated platitudes.

Judge Beck limited use of disclosed information to this action’s purposes and instituted safeguards to

effectuate a workable, reasonable protective order. The protective order is neither clearly erroneous nor

contrary to law.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, Mr. Puckett fails to substantiate his burden for reconsideration

of the protective order, and this Court DENIES Mr. Puckett’s belated request for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 71 Filed 11/21/07 Page 3 of 3