Chacko
Chacko v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RUBY CHACKO, No. 2:19-cv-01837-JAM-DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT PLAN
NO. 3,
13 Defendant. 14 I. BACKGROUND Before the Court is Ruby Chacko’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for relief from the Court’s April 27, 2020 Order at ECF No. 37 (“Prior Order”) granting in part and denying in part her motion for reconsideration. See Pl.’s Mot. for Relief (“Mot.”), ECF No. 87. As relevant here, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s denial of discovery into the relationship between AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3 (“Defendant”) and its third-party administrator, Sedgwick. Prior Order at 3-4. The Court explained that it did not find “the Magistrate Judge’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel as
1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28…