Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00221/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00221-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federated Life Insurance Company
Counter Claimant
Keith Warkentin
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH WARKENTIN, ) 

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FEDERATED LIFE INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:10cv0221 DLB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY A

JUDGE RE: ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Document 42)

Plaintiff Keith Warkentin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 22, 2009, in Merced

County Superior Court claiming that Defendant Federated Life Insurance Company

(“Federated”) unreasonably denied him benefits under two disability insurance policies. 

Federated removed the action to this Court on February 10, 2010. 

On November 23, 2011, Federated filed an application for an order to show cause why

non-party Certified Automotive (“Certified”) and Plaintiff should not be held in contempt

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Doc. 26. Following a hearing, the Court denied

the application by written order on January 13, 2012. Doc. 37. Federated now seeks

reconsideration of that order. Doc. 42.

DISCUSSION

Federated seeks review of the undersigned magistrate judge’s order by a district court

judge in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and Rule 303(c) of the Local Rules

1

Case 1:10-cv-00221-SAB Document 43 Filed 01/31/12 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

of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Federated’s request is

DENIED. 

 Reconsideration by a district judge is not available. The parties have consented to the

jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. Docs. 9 and 11. Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72

nor Local Rule 303 are applicable. There is no district court judge assigned in this case 1

authorized to review the discovery order. 

The Court considers Federated’s request for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 230,

which provides as follows: 

Whenever any motion has been granted or denied in whole or in part, and a

subsequent motion for reconsideration is made upon the same or any alleged

different set of facts, counsel shall present to the Judge or Magistrate Judge to

whom such subsequent motion is made an affidavit or brief, as appropriate, setting

forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which

reconsideration is sought, including: 

(1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge the prior motion was

made; 

(2) what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon; 

(3) what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which

did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

grounds exist for the motion; and 

(4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior

motion.

Local Rule 230(j). Here, Federated has not presented any new or different facts or circumstances 

which did not exist or were no shown upon its prior application for an order to show cause. 

Federated’s argument that Certified Automotive should be held in contempt for failure to comply

with the subpoena is not new. As the Court previously found, Certified Automotive did not

refuse to comply with the subpoena, the production was ongoing and, in the end, there were no

documents withheld from production. Thus, there was no basis for an order of contempt or the

imposition of sanctions.

Federated appears to seek reconsideration solely to recover its costs for filing the

application for an order to show cause. However, the fee request included supplemental briefing

and supplemental declarations filed by Federated after Certified Automotive produced all

Federated also cited inapplicable procedural rules in requesting the underlying order to show cause. 1

Counsel are expected to understand and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00221-SAB Document 43 Filed 01/31/12 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

responsive documents, along with unnecessary travel time for appearance at the hearing. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Federated’s request for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 30, 2012 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00221-SAB Document 43 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 3