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

----oo0oo----

JAMES P. DEFAZIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., 

Defendants. /

NOS. CIV. 04-1358 WBS GGH

 05-0559 WBS GGH

 05-1726 WBS GGH

ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Order of January 13, 2009, regarding the production of

certain documents.

On January 12, 2009, the Magistrate Judge held a

telephone conference with the parties regarding a discovery

dispute they described in statements filed on January 9, 2009. 

(Docket Nos. 440-442.) The following day, the Magistrate Judge

issued his Order directing defendants to produce certain

categories of corporate documents for plaintiffs’ inspection. 

(Docket No. 443.) Plaintiffs then filed with the undersigned an

“Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration (and Clarification)” of

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 466 Filed 03/11/09 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

2

that Order on January 30, 2009, which was subsequently stricken

in a minute order advising plaintiffs to file their application

as a noticed motion. (Id. No. 452.) Plaintiffs filed the

instant motion on February 13, 2009.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party

may serve and file objections to a magistrate judge’s

nondispositive pretrial order “within 10 days after being served

with a copy” of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Cathy v.

Walker, No. 08-3855, 2009 WL 250074, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29,

2009) (“An objection to a magistrate judge’s order must be done

within ten days of the filing date of the order that is being

challenged.”) Rule 72 further provides that “[a] party may not

assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Eastern District of California Local Rule

72-303(b) similarly instructs that “[r]ulings by Magistrate

Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought

from the Court within ten (10) court days calculated from the

date of service of the ruling on the parties.”

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 (“Computing and

Extending Time”), any objection to the January 13 Order was

required to be filed no later than January 28, 2009. However,

neither the instant motion nor plaintiffs’ previous “Ex Parte

Application for Reconsideration (and Clarification)” was filed by

that date. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration

is untimely. See, e.g., Latlip v. Schiro, No. 07-1315, 2009 WL

247913, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2009) (“The absence of a timely

objection precludes later assignment of error in this court or in

any higher court of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 466 Filed 03/11/09 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

1 The hearing set for March 16, 2009 is vacated. See

Local Rule 28-230(h).

3

judge.” (citing Philipps v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.

2002); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th

Cir. 1996))); Clinton v. Cal. Dep’t. of Corr., No. 05-1600, 2008

WL 4821744, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2008) (Karlton, J.) (“To the

extent this filing is requesting the court to reconsider the

magistrate judge’s decision denying [the plaintiff’s] motions to

compel, that request must be denied as untimely.” (citing Eastern

District of California Local Rule 72-303(b))).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order of January 13,

2009 be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.1

DATED: March 9, 2009

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 466 Filed 03/11/09 Page 3 of 3