Sedlacek

Sedlacek v. Morgan Whitney Trading Group, Inc.

Good Law
795 F. Supp. 329·1992 WL 143797·1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6997
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 1992CV-90-5124-RSWL(Sx)California1,603 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lew, J.

ORDER

Plaintiff in the above captioned action has moved for review and reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Stone’s order. Defendant Safrabank timely opposed the motion. The matter was set and oral argument was heard on November 25, 1991 at 9:00 a.m.

After oral argument, the Court took the matter under submission. Now having reviewed all the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and having considered the arguments raised orally at the hearing, the Court hereby issues the following order:

Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Stone’s October 4, 1991 order is GRANTED. The matter is RE-COMMITED to the magistrate judge to make rulings consistent with this order.

I. Background

On October 4, 1991, Magistrate Judge Stone issued a discovery order granting Defendant Safrabank’s motion to compel Plaintiff Sedlacek’s further production of documents. Plaintiff now moves for review and reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s October 4 order (the “Order”) pursuant to the Local Rules Governing Duties of Magistrate Judges. Safrabank opposes the motion.

II. Local Rules Governing Duties of Magistrate Judges: Local Rule 3.3.

Under the Local Rules…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.