Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.

Filing 76

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/27/2019. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/27/2019: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (kcS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,

9
10

Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC.,
Defendant.

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. No. 73
12
13

Before the court is plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell’s motion pursuant to Civil Local

14

Rule 72-2 for relief from two discovery orders issued by Magistrate Judge Kandis

15

Westmore.

16

A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order is conducted under a

17

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate

18

judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is “entitled to great deference.” Doubt v. NCR

19

Corp., No. 09–cv–5917–SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A

20

district court should not overturn a magistrate judge’s order simply because it “might have

21

weighed differently the various interests and equities,” but rather the district court “must

22

ascertain whether the order was contrary to law.” See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d

23

1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).

24

The court finds nothing in Judge Westmore’s orders that is clearly erroneous or

25

contrary to law. Indeed, in all respects, Judge Westmore’s order appears correct. In

26

addition, plaintiff’s objection to Judge Westmore’s March 6, 2019 order, see Dkt. 71,

27

appears to be moot because plaintiff has already filed a response that seemingly

28

complies with that order. Compare Dkt. 71 at 4 with Dkt. 74. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

1
2

objections are overruled, and the motion is DENIED.
The court also DENIES plaintiff’s request that all future matters be heard by this

3

court rather than by Judge Westmore. Pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, this action remains

4

referred to Judge Westmore for resolution of all discovery disputes.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2019

7
8

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2