Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loadholt
Defendant
Claudell Earl Martin
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

LOADHOLT,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 62)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendant Loadholt 

on a claim of retaliation. On June, 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case 

denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions and 

document production (ECF No. 58). On June 25, 2014, the Magistrate Judge denied 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the June 2nd order (ECF No. 60). 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 10, 2014 objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

orders above seeking reconsideration by the assigned District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The motion is suitable for decision without an 

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 63 Filed 07/18/14 Page 1 of 5
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

opposition. Local Rule 230(l). 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 303 provides that “[a] party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate 

Judge's ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a Judge . . . specifically 

designat[ing] the ruling, or party thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection.”

“Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Rodgers 

v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 

441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a 

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See e.g., Kern–

Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in 

part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987).” Atcherley v. Clark, 

2014 WL 2722757, at 1* (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2014).

A motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge's ruling is reviewed under the “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(a). The court may set aside only those portions of a Magistrate Judge's order 

that are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Grimes 

v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (discovery orders 

are non-dispositive pretrial matters that are reviewed for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(a)).

The clear error standard requires that the reviewing court affirm unless, on the entire 

evidence, the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed. Alvariza v. Home Depot, 241 F.R.D. 663, 664 (D. Colo. 2007). A Magistrate 

Judge's decision is “contrary to law” if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider

an element of applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case 

law, or rules of procedure. Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup'rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 459

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 63 Filed 07/18/14 Page 2 of 5
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

3

(D. Ariz. 2012).

A magistrate judge's factual findings are “clearly erroneous” when the district court is 

left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Security Farms 

v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Baca, 219 

F.R.D. 485, 489 (C.D. Cal. 2003). The “ ‘clearly erroneous' standard is significantly 

deferential.” Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers 

Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

II. DISCUSSION

“[A] district court ‘has wide latitude in controlling discovery’ and [ ] decisions 

governing discovery are highly fact-intensive.” K’napp v. Adams, 2014 WL 1616417, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. April 22, 2014), citing In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1176 

(9th Cir. 2011), quoting White v. City of San Diego, 605 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir. 1979); 

accord Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

The undersigned has examined the orders of June 2nd and June 25th and reviewed 

this entire case, including all of Plaintiff's objections, and finds that the Magistrate Judge 

appropriately considered Plaintiff’s Requests and Defendant’s Responses and denied 

Plaintiff's motions above. 

A. Objection - Vague and Ambiguous

The Magistrate explained that use of the phrases “any problems” (Request for 

Admissions, “RFA”, 7), “designated to the ho window for restriction” (RFA 8), “any and all 

documents related to any open-ended complaints” (Request for Documents, “RFD”, 14), 

and “any and all finished complaints” (RFD 15), was vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff argues 

that his requests are not vague when considered in context. However, the Magistrate’s 

analysis of Plaintiff’s use of the above phrases expressly reflects consideration of 

reasonable interpretations thereof in normal usage and context and that these phrases 

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 63 Filed 07/18/14 Page 3 of 5
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

4

remained unclear notwithstanding reasonable interpretation. 

B. Objection – Lack of Knowledge

The Magistrate also explained that further response to RFA 15, 

“ADMIT You made awear [sic] of the decision made by: Jeffrey J. Wang, M.D. (Chief 

Medical Officer); and Cherly Schutt, III (Health Care Manager); in regard’s [sic] to the 

grievance in this complaint.”

to which Defendant responded, 

“After a reasonable inquiry and a review of the decision regarding Plaintiff’s 

grievance, Defendant can neither admit or deny this request because she does not 

recall whether she was made aware of the decision.”

was denied because the Defendant, upon inquiry and review of the underlying grievance, 

sufficiently responded she could not recall information sufficient for her to admit or deny. 

See e.g., Arroyo v. Adams, 2014 WL 1338900, at *6 (E.D. Cal. April 02, 2014 (“I do not 

recall” sufficient as denial of request for admission). 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant could have contacted both parties and refreshed her

recollection before asserting lack of knowledge as a response to the request for admission. 

However, Plaintiff’s does not allege facts that reasonable inquiry was not made or readily 

obtainable information was not reviewed. See e.g., Asea, Inc., v. Southern Pac. Transp. 

Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1247 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A response [to requests for admissions] which 

fails to admit or deny a proper request for admission does not comply with the requirements 

of Rule 36(a) if the answering party has not, in fact, made ‘reasonable inquiry’ or if 

information ‘readily obtainable’ is sufficient to enable him to admit or deny the matter.”). 

The Magistrate Judge’s order denying reconsideration is not clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law because Plaintiff’s merely re-argued the predicate motion without 

demonstrating any error of fact or law in the Magistrate Judge’s underlying discovery order. 

In summary, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge's orders above 

were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 63 Filed 07/18/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

III. ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 

62) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 63 Filed 07/18/14 Page 5 of 5