Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-35/pdf.json

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

---

1

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADIL K HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE (DKT. NO. 261)

Re: Dkt. No. 266

On September 4, 2015, Plaintiff Adil Hiramanek filed a “Motion for Relief from NonDispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge and Motion for De Novo Determination.”

1 Dkt. No. 

266. Plaintiff’s motion objects to the magistrate judge’s order, Dkt. No. 261, granting defendants 

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, and Beth Miller’s motion, Dkt. No. 258, for 

leave to file a supplemental declaration in support of their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel.

After Plaintiff filed a reply in support of his motion to compel, Defendants sought court 

approval to file the declaration on August 26, 2015. Dkt. No. 258. The magistrate judge granted 

approval on September 1, 2015. Dkt. No. 261. Defendants filed the declaration on September 2, 

2015. Dkt. No. 262. This procedure complied with Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). “Once a reply is filed, 

 

1 As stated in the court’s prior orders, the parties are not entitled to de novo determination of 

discovery orders by the magistrate judge. Dkt. No. 280 at 2.

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 287 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 2
2

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval, except” in 

circumstances that the rule describes. Id. (emphasis added). The court finds no portion of the 

magistrate judge’s order that is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

The magistrate judge’s order is AFFIRMED.

Dated: September 25, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 287 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2