Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00009/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00009-80/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRIOT RAIL CORP., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SIERRA RAILROAD CO., 

Defendant. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

No. 2:09-cv-0009 TLN AC 

ORDER 

 Counter-defendant Pacific Rail LLC (a/k/a Patriot Rail LLC) (“Pacific”), seeks 

reconsideration of ECF No. 730, the undersigned’s February 9, 2016 discovery order. ECF 

No. 757. This court’s Local Rules provide for reconsideration of such orders either by the 

magistrate judge who issued it or by the district judge presiding over the case. E.D. Cal. 

R. (“Local Rule”) 303(b), (c). 

 Pacific, however, seeks reconsideration by “the Magistrate and/or the District Court.” 

ECF No. 757 at 2. Although Pacific avers that it has done so “to ensure compliance with Local 

Rule 303,” it has in fact ensured non-compliance with that Local Rule. There is no provision in 

the Local Rules for reconsideration by both judges at the same time, nor is there a provision for 

the judges to determine which one will decide the request. The request will therefore be denied 

for failure to comply with Local Rule 303. Pacific is advised that it is free to file a new request 

Case 2:09-cv-00009-TLN-AC Document 762 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

for reconsideration that complies with the Local Rules, and that seeks reconsideration either from 

the magistrate judge or the district judge, but not from both. 

 Pacific has indicated that it “believes that the issue is best addressed in the first instance 

by the Magistrate . . ..” The undersigned will be pleased to decide the matter upon presentation of 

a proper request that complies with the Local Rules. However, if Pacific chooses to submit the 

request to the district judge, it still must comply with the Local Rules, including Local 

Rule 303(c), which specifies the caption that must be used. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 757), is DENIED for non-compliance with 

Local Rule 303. 

 2. The Request To Seal (ECF No. 758), is DENIED as moot. 

 3. Pacific’s time for filing a request for reconsideration of ECF No. 730, is EXTENDED 

to 14 days from the date of this order. 

DATED: February 23, 2016 

Case 2:09-cv-00009-TLN-AC Document 762 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 2