Newsom

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NATHAN HILL, No. 2:19-cv-1680-DJC-AC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a document styled as a “Writ of Mandate” (ECF No. 155) which appears to be Objections to the assigned Magistrate Judge’s April 11, 2025, Order directing Plaintiff to sit for a deposition on May 21, 2025. (ECF No. 151; see also ECF No. 154.) The federal rules permit a party to object to non-dispositive orders issued by magistrate judges and requires that the district judge “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Local Rule 303(f) also provides that a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). In his Objections, Plaintiff argues that he did not receive notice of his prior February 13, 2025, deposition until March 10, 2025, even though the deposition…