Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02467/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02467-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Asberry
Plaintiff
City of Sacramento
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-04-2467 LKK/PAN

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

 /

Defendant has submitted a request for reconsideration and/or

clarification of the magistrate judge’s June 8, 2005 order. The

moving party requests clarification of one portion of that ruling

which deals with the production of employee personnel files. This

court is in no position to clarify an order issued by the

magistrate judge and any request for clarification/reconsideration

should first be made to the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, the request for clarification and/or

reconsideration is hereby REFERRED to the magistrate judge to

clarify his June 8 order and/or reconsider it, if appropriate. 

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 40 Filed 06/23/05 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

2

Should the parties seek further reconsideration after the

magistrate judge rules on their request, they may then seek such

from the district court judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:June 23, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. for 

Lawerence K. Karlton 

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 40 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2