Leadership Studies, Inc. v. Blanchard Training and Development, Inc. et al

Filing 204

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 174 ) is Adopted in its entirety. The Joint motion for Determination of Discovery dispute (ECF No. 141 ) is Granted and Plaintiff's request for an order imposing discovery sanctions against Defendant by excluding the expert report and expert testimony of Hal Poret is Denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 08/07/2018. (ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

LEADERSHIP STUDIES, INC., a
California corporation,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15-cv-1831-WQH (KSC)
ORDER

vs.
BLANCHARD TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

14

Defendant.

15 HAYES, Judge:
16

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

17 (ECF No. 174) issued by the United States Magistrate Judge.
18 Background
19

On April 27, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued the Report and

20 Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny the request by Plaintiff
21 Leadership Studies for an order imposing discovery sanctions against Defendant
22 Blanchard Training and Development by excluding the expert report and expert
23 testimony of Hal Poret. (ECF No. 174).
24

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

25 (ECF No. 190).
26

On May 18, 2018, Defendant filed a response to the objections. (ECF No. 195).

27
28
-1-

15cv1831-WQH -KSC

1 Legal Standard
2

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

3 of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28
4 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those
5 portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or
6 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”
7 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
8 Ruling of the Court
9

After conducting a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and

10 considering the objections filed by Plaintiff Leadership Studies, the Court finds that the
11 Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the request for an order excluding the expert
12 report and expert testimony of Hal Poret should be denied. The Court adopts the Report
13 and Recommendation in its entirety.
14 Conclusion
15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

16 174) is adopted in its entirety. The Joint motion for Determination of Discovery dispute
17 (ECF No. 141) is granted and Plaintiff’s request for an order imposing discovery
18 sanctions against Defendant by excluding the expert report and expert testimony of Hal
19 Poret is denied.
20
21
22
23

DATED: August 7, 2018
WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-2-

15cv1831-WQH -KSC