Bravo v. The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, No. 2:2008cv01982 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/30/09: Defendant's objections to the findings and recommendations, Dckt. No. 39, are construed as a request for reconsideration of the November 13, 2009 order, Dckt. No. 38. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the request for reconsideration on or before December 3, 2009. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
Bravo v. The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 YVETTE BRAVO, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 No. CIV S-08-1982 LKK EFB vs. THE UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. ORDER / 16 17 On November 13, 2009, the undersigned issued an order and findings and 18 recommendations regarding plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to respond to certain requests 19 for production of documents. Dckt. No. 38. The order required defendant to produce various 20 documents in response to plaintiff’s discovery requests, and recommended that the discovery 21 completion deadline of November 15, 2009 be extended to November 30, 2009, for the limited 22 purpose of permitting defendant to produce the discovery at issue. Id. at 7. The court further 23 stated that any party could file written objections to the findings and recommendations on or 24 before November 23, 2009. Id. 25 26 On November 23, 2009, defendant filed objections to the portions of the November 13, 2009 order requiring defendant to “produce redacted documents responsive to plaintiff’s 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Document Request Number 3 to Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Taking the Deposition of Nurse 2 Girard,” and requiring defendant to “produce redacted claims files for the last 30 claims made by 3 SUSD employees between May 2005 and May 2006.” Dckt. No. 39 at 2. Although defendant 4 construed those portions of the November 13, 2009 order as “recommendations,” they were 5 actually orders issued pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(1). Therefore, defendant’s objections 6 will be construed as a request for reconsideration by the undersigned of the portions of the 7 November 13 order addressed in the objections. Although Local Rule 72-304(d) provides that a 8 response to objections may be filed “within ten (10) court days after service of the objections,” 9 in light of the November 15, 2009 discovery deadline in this case, which the undersigned 10 recommended be partially extended to November 30, 2009, the court will direct plaintiff to file a 11 response to defendant’s request for reconsideration on or before December 3, 2010. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Defendant’s objections to the findings and recommendations, Dckt. No. 39, are 14 15 construed as a request for reconsideration of the November 13, 2009 order, Dckt. No. 38; and 2. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the request 16 for reconsideration on or before December 3, 2010. 17 DATED: November 30, 2009. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.