Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05420/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05420-6/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

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S JUNE 11, 2007 ORDER—C-03-05420 RMW

MAG

E-filed on: 7/13/07 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMAR EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

No. C-03-05420 RMW

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S JUNE 11,

2007 ORDER

[Re Docket No. 120]

Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows parties to file timely objections to

rulings of a magistrate judge in nondispositive matters. Such objections are sustained if the

magistrate judge's order is "found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

On June 18, 2007 plaintiff filed his objection to the magistrate judge's June 11, 2007 Order

Denying As Moot Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Plaintiff sought to compel defendants to produce a

complete copy of a surveillance tape from the night he was booked into the Department of

Corrections, April 2, 2003. The magistrate judge denied plaintiff's motion to compel on the basis

that the evidence and argument before him demonstrated that plaintiff had agreed to withdraw his

discovery request and resubmit it after the parties had officially met and conferred. 

Plaintiff argues in his objection that he submitted a reply to defendants' opposition in which

he denied that he had agreed to withdraw his discovery request. With his objection, he submits a

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 123 Filed 07/13/07 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

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S JUNE 11, 2007 ORDER—C-03-05420 RMW

MAG 2

copy of a reply that was filed in a separate case, Case No. 06-3299, which does, as he asserts, state

that he had declined to withdraw his discovery request. 

Nevertheless, the court has reviewed the magistrate judge's order and finds it to be neither

clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Based on the information before him at the time in the present

case, the magistrate judge's ruling was appropriate. It is plaintiff's responsibility to ensure that his

pleadings are appropriately captioned, given that he has more than one case in progress. 

Now that the parties have met and conferred, plaintiff may resubmit his discovery request for

the surveillance tape, ensuring that his future discovery requests and pleadings, if any, reference the

appropriate case.

DATED: 7/10/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 123 Filed 07/13/07 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

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S JUNE 11, 2007 ORDER—C-03-05420 RMW

MAG 3

A copy of this order was mailed on 7/13/07 to:

Plaintiff:

Jamar Evans 

Post Office Box 25 

Atwater, CA 95301 

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Neysa A. Fligor 

Office of the County Counsel 

70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Fl 

San Jose, CA 95110 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Dated: 7/13/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 123 Filed 07/13/07 Page 3 of 3