Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00406/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00406-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

S.O. a minor, by and through 

Guardian Ad Litem, LOLITA O’NEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

Rescue Union School District, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC-P

ORDER

Defendant Rescue Union School District seeks reconsideration of a minute 

order issued by the assigned Magistrate Judge related to the redaction of documents 

produced in discovery, which Plaintiff has opposed. The Magistrate Judge previously 

granted a motion to compel production related to these documents (ECF No. 24) and 

later set a deadline for production of the documents (ECF No. 33). In the latter order, 

the Magistrate Judge recognized that some issues might exist related to the redaction 

of production but specifically declined to address that issue at that time as it was not 

properly presented to the court. (ECF No. 33 at 3 n.1.)

The parties agreed to an Informal Telephonic Conference in lieu of the formal 

Local Rule 251 procedures to address the outstanding redaction issues. (See ECF No. 

32.) As the parties had consented to that informal conference, the Magistrate Judge 

did not prepare a written statement of her ruling with the reasons therefore in 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 40 Filed 03/07/24 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

accordance with Local Rule 303(a). In order for this Court to engage in a meaningful 

review of the Magistrate Judge’s determination, the Court will permit the parties to 

request from the Magistrate Judge a formal written order that complies with Local 

Rule 303(a).

Defendant Rescue Union School District’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 

38) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling a further motion for reconsideration of 

any decision the Magistrate Judge enters as a result of a request made under this 

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 40 Filed 03/07/24 Page 2 of 2