Williams v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners et al

Filing 242

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The plaintiff's objection (Filing No. 219 ) to the order of the magistrate judge (Filing No. 216 ) is overruled. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHARVETTE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

8:09CV201

v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
COUNTY OF DAKOTA, NEBRASKA; and
RODNEY HERRON, in his individual
capacity;
Defendants.

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s objections to the order of the
magistrate judge, Filing No. 219. The plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s order
denying its motion to consolidate this case with the case of Crutcher-Sanchez v. County
of Dakota, No. 8:09CV288 (“Crutcher-Sanchez”), and granting the defendant’s motion to
bifurcate the cases. Filing No. 216. Those objections have been rendered moot by the
dismissal of the Crutcher-Sanchez case.

See Crutcher-Sanchez, Filing No. 240.

Similarly, the plaintiff’s objection to an amendment of a protective order relates to an
order filed in the dismissed case. Id., Filing No. 228, Order (D. Neb. Nov. 19, 2012).
The plaintiff also objects to the magistrate judge’s ruling with respect to the
deposition of the plaintiff’s expert.
plaintiff’s expense.

The magistrate judge ordered the deposition at

Filing No. 216, Order at 3-4.

On review of a decision of the

magistrate judge on a pretrial matter, the district court may set aside any part of the
magistrate judge’s order that it finds is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C.
' 636 (b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1986).
See also Bialas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 59 F.3d 759, 764 (8th Cir. 1995) (noting Aa

magistrate is afforded broad discretion in the resolution of nondispositive discovery
disputes@).
Based on his familiarity with the case, the magistrate judge was within his
discretion to order the expert deposition at plaintiff’s expense.

Defendant has not

shown that the magistrate judge=s findings are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s objection (Filing No. 219) to the order of the
magistrate judge (Filing No. 216) is overruled.
Dated this 26th day of February, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

2