Huck v. Kone, Inc.

Filing 92

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/3/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2011)

*E-Filed 8/3/11*

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12

RANDALL HUCK,

13
14
15

No. C 10-1845 RS

Plaintiff,

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

v.
KONE, INC.,

16
17
18
19

Defendant.
____________________________________/
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 11, 2011, plaintiff Huck filed an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive

20

pretrial Order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel. This Court set a briefing schedule. Upon

21

review of the underlying Order and the parties’ briefing, it is clear the objection must be overruled.

22

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION

23

A District Court may set aside or modify a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive

24

matter if the order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R.

25

Civ. P. 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Huck contends

26

the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying his motion to compel “failed to apply” Federal Rules of Civil

27

Procedure 26 and 34 or “any other” legal authority. (Pl.’s Mt. at 2:6-8.) In his motion to compel

28

responses to his requests for production of documents, Huck lodged two complaints. First, he
NO. C 10-1845 RS
ORDER

1

argued Kone had failed to produce all documents responsive to his request, such as his complete

2

personnel record. Second, Huck complained that he had not received a privilege log from Kone,

3

despite the fact that the defendant objected to certain discovery requests on the grounds that the

4

information sought was proprietary. In response, Kone informed the Court that it had produced

5

documents in response to Huck’s request on two occasions: the first on April 9, 2011 and the second

6

on June 9, 2011. It professed to have produced all documents in its control and possession

7

responsive to Huck’s request. Further, it represented that it continues efforts to locate any further

8

documents. As to its objections, Kone explained that it has not withheld any documents based upon

9

them. The Magistrate Judge, finding no evidence that any responsive documents had in fact been
withheld, much less that they were withheld improperly, denied the motion to compel and found the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

privilege log objection moot. Although Huck plainly disagrees with that finding, he presents no

12

explanation as to how it was “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to” the Federal Rules of Civil

13

Procedure. Huck had a full and fair opportunity to brief his motion, his complaints were considered,

14

and the Magistrate Judge found that Kone had complied with its discovery obligations. There is no

15

supportable reason to overturn that decision, and Huck’s objection is overruled.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: 8/3/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
NO. C 10-1845 RS
ORDER

28

2