Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06075/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06075-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 1

The Court did not order a response from plaintiff. See Civil L.R. 72-2 (providing

“[u]nless otherwise ordered by the assigned District Judge, no response need be filed and

no hearing will be held concerning the motion”).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD T. FURNACE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

K. KNUCKLES, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-6075 MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM ORDER OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is the “Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of

Magistrate Judge,” filed June 9, 2015, by the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), by which CDCR seeks relief from a nondispositive discovery order

issued by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte requiring CDCR to produce, inter alia, (1)

“documents relating to [p]laintiff contained in third party internal affairs files”; (2) “limited

portions of the [facility] map [that] are relevant to [p]laintiff[’s] claims”; and (3) “protocols for

responding to alarms” (see Order Regarding Outstanding Issues, filed April 23, 2015 at 5,

8, 9). 

The Court, having reviewed the papers filed in support of the motion1 and having

Case 3:09-cv-06075-MMC Document 283 Filed 06/12/15 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

fully considered the matter, hereby DENIES the motion, for the reason that CDCR has

failed to show the subject order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C

636(b)(1)(A) (providing district court may reconsider magistrate judge’s order where it has

been shown to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-06075-MMC Document 283 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 2