Opinion
2:09-cv-00966-HDM-LRL.
March 1, 2011
ORDER
Before the court is plaintiffs' "Objection to Magistrate's Ruling [70 72]" (Docket No. 77) construed as a motion for the district judge to reconsider the magistrate judge's orders (Docket Nos. 70 and 72) which denied plaintiffs' proposed protective order. Defendants have responded (Docket No. 80) and plaintiffs have replied (Docket No. 87).
The court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record related to plaintiffs' motion (Docket No. 77). The magistrate judge's rulings (Docket Nos. 70 and 72) are not clearly erroneous, contrary to law and/or an abuse of discretion. See Local Rule IB-1(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, 72. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion (Docket No. 77) is DENIED and the magistrate judge's rulings (Docket Nos. 70 and 72) are AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 1st day of March 2011.