*1 Plaintiff David Brewer filed Objections to Magistrate’s Order on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Depositions (Doc. 94) on January 26, 2016. Defendant BNSF responded to Plaintiff’s Objections on February 2, 2016. (Doc. 95.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court affirms the Magistrate’s Order in full.

STANDARD

This Court will reverse the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive discovery matter only if such ruling proves “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A finding proves “clearly erroneous” when, although there may be evidence to support it, this Court on the entire evidence possesses a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Mondaca-Vega v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013) (adhered to on reh’g en banc sub nom. Mondaca-Vega v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2015)). A decision proves “contrary to law” when it applies “an incorrect legal standard or fails to consider an element of the applicable standard.” Lovell v. United Airlines, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1100 (D. Haw. 2010).

DISCUSSION

Judge Johnston held oral argument on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order on October 6, 2015. (Docs. 53; 58.) The Magistrate subsequently issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion on October 19, 2015. (Doc. 61.) The October 19, 2015, Order limited specifically Plaintiff’s 30(b)(6) and J. Obermiller deposition notices.

Plaintiff then filed a Second Motion to Compel Depositions (Doc. 71) on November 11, 2015. This motion consisted of Plaintiff’s renewed request to the Magistrate that he be allowed to take a 30(b)(6) deposition on topics identified in his original motion. (Doc. 71 at 16.) Plaintiff similarly renewed his request that the Court compel the deposition of J. Obermiller. (Id.) It appears that Plaintiff’s “second motion to compel” simply asked the Magistrate to reconsider the scope of the protective order it had already issued with respect to the 30(b)(6) and J. Obermiller depositions.

Judge Johnston issued another Order on January 12, 2016, denying Plaintiff’s second motion. (Doc. 93.) The Magistrate specifically and clearly stated that it had already ruled on Defendant’s motion for a protective order with regard to the requested depositions. (Doc. 93 at 2.) The Court found no reason to reconsider its order. (Id.) It is from this Order which Plaintiff has filed objections. (Doc. 94.)

Judge Johnston’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Depositions does not prove clearly erroneous or otherwise contrary to law. Reconsideration proves appropriate only where (1) a party presents new evidence to the Court; (2) the Court has committed clear error or the original decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there occurs an intervening change in controlling law. Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013).

Plaintiff supports his renewed motion with deposition testimony of two BNSF management officials, each of which Plaintiff had taken at the time he filed his motion to compel and Defendant filed its motion for a protective order in response. (Doc. 95 at 10.) This deposition testimony fails to constitute new evidence in support of Plaintiff’s claim that BNSF officials deleted relevant emails. The Magistrate correctly determined “that BNSF has produced the emails Brewer has requested and/or it has withheld certain emails from production after identifying them on a privilege log.” (Doc. 93 at 2–3.)

*2 Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with an explanation as to why he failed to disclose this deposition testimony to the Court earlier or why its existence should permit Plaintiff to engage in expansive forensic ESI discovery and depositions. Plaintiff similarly has failed to present this Court with “newly discovered evidence” in support of his motion for reconsideration. There exists no clear error in any of portion of the Magistrate’s Order, therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate’s Order on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Depositions (Doc. 94) is DENIED. Judge Johnston’s Order (Doc. 93) is AFFIRMED.