Opinion
4:22-cv-5137-YGR
08-01-2024
M.R., Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. United States, Et Al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
RE: DKT. NO. 179
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 27, 2024, plaintiffs filed their Motion for Relief from Non-dispositive Pretrial Order (Dkt. No. 179), seeking relief from Magistrate Judge Tse's March 13, 2024 Order Permitting Experts to Enter BOP Facilities to Conduct Evaluations on Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 170). The Court having considered the motion and all related papers, Denies the motion for relief.
A motion for relief from a non-dispositive order should only be granted when the moving party establishes that the non-dispositive order by the magistrate judge is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; see Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir.1991) (“the magistrate's decision on a non-dispositive issue will be reviewed by the district judge under the clearly erroneous standard”); Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. C-11-2709 EMC, 2013 WL 841334, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 6, 2013) (same). “In finding that the magistrate judge's decision is ‘clearly erroneous,' the Court must arrive at a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Barnes & Noble , 2013 WL 841334 at *1 (internal citations and quotations omitted). This standard of review is extremely deferential. Id.
The Court finds that plaintiffs have not satisfied its burden under Rule 72(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to show that Magistrate Judge Tse's order was “clearly erroneous or [] contrary to law.”
In ruling on the motion to permit expert evaluations, Magistrate Judge Tse considered numerous competing proposed orders, oral arguments presented, and this Court's prior order requiring reciprocal evaluations.
The order issued by Magistrate Judge Tse amply balances the needs of all parties and the requirements of Rule 35. As the government notes in its opposition, Magistrate Judge Tse's order already permits government evaluation of individual plaintiffs only if that individual does not opt to forgo prior evaluation with their own expert. Thus, any plaintiff who does not wish to place their mental state at issue in the case can avoid evaluation altogether. Second, plaintiffs fail to raise any reason why Magistrate Judge Tse's order was “clearly erroneous or [] contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Order is Denied.
This order terminates Dkt. No. 179.
It Is So Ordered.