Bravo v. The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, No. 2:2008cv01982 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/07/09; the discovery completion deadline is extended to 11/30/09 for the purpose of permitting dft to produce discovery at issue in the magistrates judge's 11/13/09 order; the discovery deadline is extended to 12/11/09 for the purpose of permitting dft to obtain, retrieve, redact, copy, and produce the discovery at issue in the magistrate judge's 12/04/09 order. (Manzer, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bravo v. The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York Doc. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 YVETTE BRAVO, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, 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, ORDER 15 Defendants. / 16 17 On November 13, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed by November 23, 2009. Defendant filed 20 objections to the findings and recommendations on November 23, 2009 and they were 21 considered by the undersigned.1 On December 4, 2009, the magistrate judge filed amended 22 findings and recommendations which were also served on the parties. 23 24 25 26 1 Defendant also filed “objections” to the magistrate judge’s November 13, 2009 discovery order, which the magistrate judge construed as a motion for reconsideration and which the magistrate judge granted in part. To the extent the objections were also intended as a request for reconsideration by the district judge of the November 13 discovery order, pursuant to Local Rule 303(c) that request is denied. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 2 which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 3 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 4 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, 5 the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. 6 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 7 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 8 1983). 9 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 10 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the discovery completion deadline of November 15, 2009 is 12 extended to November 30, 2009, for the limited purpose of permitting defendant to produce the 13 discovery at issue in the magistrate judge’s November 13, 2009 order, and extended to December 14 11, 2009, for the limited purpose of permitting defendant to obtain, retrieve, redact, copy, and 15 produce the discovery at issue in the magistrate judge’s December 4, 2009 order. 16 DATED: December 7, 2009. 17 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.
