Puckett

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Jeremy Phillip Puckett, No. 2:22-cv-00350-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. County of Sacramento, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The magistrate judge granted plaintiff's motion to compel Federal Rule 30(b)(6) 18 | depositions, Dep. Order, ECF No. 74, to compel productions of documents, Produc. Order, 19 | ECF No. 80, and responses to interrogatories, Interrog. Order, ECF No. 94. Defendants move for 20 | reconsideration of all three orders, First Mot., ECF No. 84; Second Mot., ECF No. 92; Third 21 | Mot., ECF No. 109, and plaintiff opposes, First Opp’n, ECF No. 89; Second Opp’n, ECF 22 | No. 102; Third Opp’n 117. Defendants’ motions are denied. 23 | I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A district judge may consider timely requests to “modify or set aside any part of the 25 | [magistrate judge’s] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 26 | see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. L.R.…