Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00909/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00909-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMY MCCONNELL, et al., NO. CIV.S-05-0909 FCD DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

LASSEN COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

This matter came before the court on January 12, 2007, for

hearing on the motion to compel production of documents and responses

to interrogatories filed on behalf of defendants Terry Chapman, James

Chapman, Jack Hanson, Brian Dahle and Lassen County and a motion for

terminating sanctions due to plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the

court’s prior discovery order brought on behalf of defendants Lloyd

Keefer, Bob Pyle and Terry Chapman. As announced at the hearing, by

order filed January 18, 2007, defendants’ motion to compel production

of documents and further answers to interrogatories was granted in

Case 2:05-cv-00909-MCE-DAD Document 102 Filed 01/31/07 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

2

part and denied in part. Plaintiffs and their counsel were ordered

to provide supplemental discovery responses, including proper

verifications, on or before January 18, 2007 and to pay sanctions to

defense counsel in the amount of $1,000 to cover the expenses of

bringing the motion to compel on or before March 13, 2007. 

Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions was denied.

On January 22, 2007, counsel for plaintiffs filed a

document entitled “Objections to the order Of Magistrate Judge.” In

that document plaintiffs’ counsel repeats arguments made at the

hearing, arguing that the motion to compel should not have been

granted in any respect. Plaintiffs’ counsel also objects to being

ordered to pay any sanctions in connection with the motion.

The filing of “objections” by plaintiffs’ counsel to the

undersigned’s order is in error. Local Rule 72-303 provides as

follows:

(b) Finality. 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, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (e);

Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(a), (e), unless a different

time is prescribed by the Magistrate Judge or the

Judge.

(c) Reconsideration by a District Judge. A

party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling shall file a request for

reconsideration by a Judge . . . . Such request

shall specifically designate the ruling, or part

thereof, objected to and the basis for that

objection. This request shall be captioned

“Request for Reconsideration by the District

Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.”

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00909-MCE-DAD Document 102 Filed 01/31/07 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

3

Local Rule 72-304 provides that: 

(a) Determination. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the Magistrate Judges

shall hear, conduct such evidentiary hearings as 

appropriate, and submit to the assigned Judge

proposed findings of fact and recommendations for

the disposition of excepted pretrial motions

referred in accordance with L.R. 72-302. The

Magistrate Judge shall file the proposed findings

and recommendations with the Clerk and shall

serve all parties.

(b) Objections. Within ten (10) court days after

service of the proposed findings and

recommendations on the parties, see Fed. R. Civ.

P. 6(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e); Fed. R. Crim. P.

45(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(c), unless a different

time is prescribed by the Court, any party may

file with the Clerk, and serve on all parties,

objections to such proposed findings and/or

recommendations to which objection is made and

the basis for the objection.

The undersigned’s order filed January 18, 2007, was a

ruling on a motion to compel and for imposition of sanctions. It was

thus subject to the provisions of Local Rule 72-303. The ruling was

an order and not findings and recommendations that would be the

proper subject of objections under Local Rule 72-304.

Moreover, it is unclear whether the document filed by

plaintiffs’ counsel was directed to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

or the assigned District Judge. To the extent the document could be

construed as a motion to reconsider directed to the undersigned, the

motion is denied since counsel merely rehashes the arguments

previously rejected by the court. In the event counsel for

plaintiffs intended to seek reconsideration of the undersigned’s

order by the assigned District Judge, counsel is referred to Local

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00909-MCE-DAD Document 102 Filed 01/31/07 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

4

Rule 72-303(c), set out in full above, for the procedure to be

followed in seeking such reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2007.

Ddad1\orders.civil\mcconnell.013107

Case 2:05-cv-00909-MCE-DAD Document 102 Filed 01/31/07 Page 4 of 4