Reda A. Ginena, etal VS Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Filing 272

ORDER that Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Order of Magistrate Judge that Eight Plaintiffs Appear for Second Deposition by Defendant in Las Vegas is DENIED. Plaintiffs' requests for a hearing on the Motion is also DENIED. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/24/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***
Case No. 2:04-cv-01304-MMD-CWH

8
9

REDA GINENA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.
ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.,

12

Defendant.

13

(Plfs.’ Objections in Part and Motion to
Reconsider Order of Magistrate Judge that
Eight Plaintiffs Appear for Second
Deposition by Defendant in Las Vegas –
dkt. no. 268)

14

15

I.

SUMMARY

16

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Order of Magistrate Judge that

17

Eight Plaintiffs Appear for Second Deposition by Defendant in Las Vegas (dkt. no. 268).

18

For reasons discussed below, the Court denies the Motion.

19

II.

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiffs filed their original complaint nearly eight years ago, on September 17,

21

2004. In late 2005, Alaska Airlines took Plaintiffs’ depositions. On remand from the Ninth

22

Circuit, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on March 19, 2012. (Dkt.

23

no. 225.)

24

Plaintiff individually alleges that Defendant defamed him or her.

25

Defendant filed a motion for leave to take second depositions of Plaintiffs regarding

26

these newly pled claims. (Dkt. no. 228.) After several additional filings regarding this

27

discovery motion (dkt. nos. 235, 236, 249), Defendant filed supplemental briefing setting

28

forth additional grounds for leave to take second depositions of plaintiffs (dkt. no. 257).

The SAC contains seven new defamation causes of action.

(Id.)

Each

On May 1, 2012,

1

On July 24, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hoffman granted Defendant’s request to take

2

second depositions of Plaintiffs regarding their newly filed defamation claims. (Dkt. no.

3

264.)

4

Plaintiffs do not object to the re-deposition of Plaintiff Reda A. Ginena. (Dkt. no.

5

268 at 1.) Nor do they object to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on the location of the

6

depositions. (See Dkt. no. 268.) Plaintiffs object to Judge Hoffman’s Order regarding all

7

other depositions. (Dkt. nos. 268.)

8

III.

DISCUSSION
A.

9

Legal Standard

10

Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district

11

court review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. §

12

636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L.R. IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may

13

reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case

14

pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s ruling is

15

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). “28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) “would also enable the

16

court to delegate some of the more administrative functions to a magistrate, such as . . .

17

assistance in the preparation of plans to achieve prompt disposition of cases in the

18

court.”

19

erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the

20

entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

21

committed.” United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation

22

omitted). A magistrate’s pretrial order issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is not

23

subject to de novo review, and the reviewing court “may not simply substitute its

24

judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951

25

F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869 (1989). “A finding is clearly

26

B.

Analysis

27

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s Order, Plaintiffs’ Objections, and

28

Defendant’s Responses, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Order (dkt.
2

1

no. 264) was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge correctly

2

determined that the newly added claims, substantial passage of time, new allegations in

3

the discovery responses, and unavailability of the information sought by Defendant from

4

other sources made the second depositions of plaintiffs appropriate. (See dkt. no. 266

5

at 4-5.) Further, Magistrate Judge Hoffman limited the scope of the second depositions

6

to the newly pled defamation claims (id.) and offered the Court’s assistance in resolving

7

any objections to ensure that the depositions would be limited in scope. (Id. at 29.)1

8

IV.

CONCLUSION

9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Order of

10

Magistrate Judge that Eight Plaintiffs Appear for Second Deposition by Defendant in Las

11

Vegas (dkt. no. 268) is DENIED.

12

Plaintiffs’ requests for a hearing on the Motion is also DENIED.

13
14

DATED THIS 24th day of August 2012.

15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Further, Plaintiffs’ argument that Mr. Ginena’s deposition is an adequate
substitute for redeposing the other seven Plaintiffs is unavailing. In Plaintiffs’ Reply to
Response to Motion to Set New Trial Date (dkt. no. 248), Plaintiffs assert that the nine
Plaintiffs “are not identically situated” for the purposes of their defamation claims. (Id. at
9.) As such, Mr. Ginena’s deposition would not adequately provide Defendant with
testimony regarding each individual plaintiff’s asserted damages arising out of his or her
defamation claims.
3