Turek v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

Filing 49

ORDER. Unum's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Rulings on Discovery 30 are OVERRULED. Unum's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Unum's Motion To Stay Discovery 39 is DENIED AS MOOT. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/24/13. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01321-REB-BNB
ANNA TUREK,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING UNUM’S OBJECTIONS
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULINGS ON DISCOVERY
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) Unum’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Rulings on Discovery [#30],1 filed December 11, 2012; and 2) Unum’s Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Denying Unum’s Motion To Stay Discovery [#39], filed
January 11, 2013. I overrule the objections and deny the motion for reconsideration as
moot.
Defendant’s objections pertain to non-dispositive matters that were referred to
the magistrate judge for resolution. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a), I may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge’s order which I find to
be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s order
and the transcript of the hearing; the apposite motion, response, and reply; defendant’s
1

“[#103]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

objections and plaintiff’s response and defendant’s reply, I conclude that the magistrate
judge’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Given my ruling in that regard,
defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending my determination of the motion is moot
and will be denied on that basis.
THEREFORE, IT IS ordered as follows:
1. That the objections stated in Unum’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Rulings on Discovery [#30], filed December 11, 2012, are OVERRULED; and
2. That Unum’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Unum’s
Motion To Stay Discovery [#39], filed January 11, 2013, is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated January 24, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2