Phan v. Jetblue Airways Corporation, 16-cv-2328 WBS DB. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180703941
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On January 11, 2018, defendant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of part of the magistrate judge's order filed on December 28, 2017, denying in part and granting in part plaintiff's motion to compel. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See also E.D. Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Upon review of the entire fil
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On January 11, 2018, defendant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of part of the magistrate judge's order filed on December 28, 2017, denying in part and granting in part plaintiff's motion to compel. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See also E.D. Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Upon review of the entire file..
More
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
On January 11, 2018, defendant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of part of the magistrate judge's order filed on December 28, 2017, denying in part and granting in part plaintiff's motion to compel. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See also E.D. Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Upon review of the entire file, considering that the magistrate judge's order limited discovery to contact information for passengers seated in plaintiff's row and through the back of plane and further limited plaintiff's request to any complaints of injuries from turbulence in the last two years, the court does not find the magistrate judge's determination that plaintiff had a compelling need for those records and had an inability to obtain those records through other means, which outweighed defendant's privacy concerns, to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 65) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
Source: Leagle
