Deol

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION, No. 2:20-cv-00791-MCE-AC

INC.,

11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 KIRAN DEOL, and John and Jane 14 Does 1 through 10. 15 Defendants. 16 17 By way of the present action, Plaintiff VibrantCare Rehabilitation, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), 18 seeks damages from its former employee, Defendant Kiran Deol (“Defendant”) stemming 19 from Defendant’s conduct at or around the end of her employment with Plaintiff. 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 72) of the 21 magistrate judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 70). For the 22 following reasons, that Motion is DENIED.1 23 In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply 24 the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 25 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. 26 § 636(b)(1)(A). Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate…