WILSON v. CONAIR CORPORATION, 1:14-00894 WBS SAB. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150918c53
Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On August 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Boone denied plaintiff's motion to compel production of numerous curling irons in defendant's possession for destructive testing. Judge Boone explained that, because the testing addresses the merits of the action and not class certification, defendant should not be compelled to produce the curling irons unless and until plaintiff prevails on her motion for class certification. ( See Aug. 17, 2015 Order at 6:4-7:
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On August 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Boone denied plaintiff's motion to compel production of numerous curling irons in defendant's possession for destructive testing. Judge Boone explained that, because the testing addresses the merits of the action and not class certification, defendant should not be compelled to produce the curling irons unless and until plaintiff prevails on her motion for class certification. ( See Aug. 17, 2015 Order at 6:4-7:2..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
On August 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Boone denied plaintiff's motion to compel production of numerous curling irons in defendant's possession for destructive testing. Judge Boone explained that, because the testing addresses the merits of the action and not class certification, defendant should not be compelled to produce the curling irons unless and until plaintiff prevails on her motion for class certification. (See Aug. 17, 2015 Order at 6:4-7:2); see also Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454, 459 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("Prior to certification of a class action, discovery is generally limited and in the discretion of the court.").
In seeking reconsideration of Judge Boone's Order, plaintiff must show that his decision was "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." E.D. Local R. 303(f). Not only is the decision not "clearly erroneous," it makes a lot of sense.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the August 17, 2015 Order denying her motion to compel be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
Source: Leagle
