Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.

N.D. California

Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.

DecidedSeptember 23, 2019

Docket4:18-cv-01402

StatusUnknown

This text of Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc. (Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 GEORGETTE G. PURNELL, Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE 10 RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC., PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 136 12

13 14 Before the court is plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell’s motion for review under Civil 15 Local Rule 72-2 from a non-dispositive discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge 16 Kandis Westmore on August 27, 2019. 17 A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order is conducted under a 18 “clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate 19 judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is “entitled to great deference.” Doubt v. NCR 20 Corp., No. 09–cv–5917–SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A 21 district court should not overturn a magistrate judge’s order simply because it “might have 22 weighed differently the various interests and equities,” but rather the district court “must 23 ascertain whether the order was contrary to law.” See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 24 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 25 The court finds nothing in Judge Westmore’s orders that is clearly erroneous or 26 contrary to law. Instead, Judge Westmore’s orders appear correct and appropriate given 27 the circumstances at hand. Plaintiff must satisfy her discovery obligations, including 1 responsive documents in her possession. Given that plaintiff does not contest her 2 general non-responsiveness during her prior 10 hours of deposition, Judge Westmore’s 3 order for an additional five hours of deposition time is also well-placed. Lastly, plaintiff 4 failed to expressly identify anything in the record suggesting bias or that would otherwise 5 justify its broader review. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 23, 2019 8 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 9 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 GEORGETTE G. PURNELL, Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE 10 RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC., PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 136 12

13 14 Before the court is plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell’s motion for review under Civil 15 Local Rule 72-2 from a non-dispositive discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge 16 Kandis Westmore on August 27, 2019. 17 A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order is conducted under a 18 “clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate 19 judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is “entitled to great deference.” Doubt v. NCR 20 Corp., No. 09–cv–5917–SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A 21 district court should not overturn a magistrate judge’s order simply because it “might have 22 weighed differently the various interests and equities,” but rather the district court “must 23 ascertain whether the order was contrary to law.” See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 24 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 25 The court finds nothing in Judge Westmore’s orders that is clearly erroneous or 26 contrary to law. Instead, Judge Westmore’s orders appear correct and appropriate given 27 the circumstances at hand. Plaintiff must satisfy her discovery obligations, including 1 responsive documents in her possession. Given that plaintiff does not contest her 2 general non-responsiveness during her prior 10 hours of deposition, Judge Westmore’s 3 order for an additional five hours of deposition time is also well-placed. Lastly, plaintiff 4 failed to expressly identify anything in the record suggesting bias or that would otherwise 5 justify its broader review. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 23, 2019 8 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 9 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purnell-v-rudolph-and-sletten-inc-cand-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack