Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02537/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02537-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DINESH MANIAR,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CROMPTON KENNEDY FINE WINE

PURVEYORS,

Defendant. /

No. C06-02537 MJJ

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Docket No. 13.) On

July 17, 2007, Magistrate Judge Edward Chen issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Docket No. 32.) On July 27, 2007, Plaintiff

filed Plaintiff’s Supplemental Briefing and Evidence in Support of Motion for Default Judgment,

and Award of a Damgages (sic) on the Fraudulent Inducement Claim (“Plaintiff’s Supplemental

Motion”). (Docket No. 33.) 

The Court has considered the R&R, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. The

Court also considered, but is unpersuaded by, the request in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for the

Court to consider additional evidence. 

This Court has wide discretion to consider and reconsider the Magistrate’s recommendation. 

Courts have identified several relevant factors to decide whether to accept additional evidence after

a Magistrate’s recommendation has been issued, including: (1) the moving party's reasons for not

Case 3:06-cv-02537-MJJ Document 37 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

originally submitting the evidence; (2) the importance of the omitted evidence to the moving party’s

case; (3) whether the evidence was previously available to the non-moving party when it responded

to the summary judgment motion; and (4) the likelihood of unfair prejudice to the non-moving party

if the evidence is accepted. See Freeman v. County of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848, 852 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The Court finds that these factors generally weigh against allowing Plaintiff’s request to

supplement the record with additional evidence of production costs. The evidence that Plaintiff now

seeks to put before this Court was previously available to Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided an

adequate explanation as to why this level of detail was not introduced earlier. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s request conflicts with this Court’s belief that “[l]itigants may not . . . use the magistrate

judge as a mere sounding-board for the sufficiency of the evidence.” Id. at 852.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

Judgment, awarding damages in the amount of $274,550.00. Additionally, the Court DENIES the

request in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion that the Court consider additional evidence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02537-MJJ Document 37 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 2