Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.

Opinion

Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH Plaintiff,

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

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