Allstate Insurance Company et al vs. Nassiri, et al.,

Filing 364

ORDER Denying 345 Defendants' Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/17/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7

ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

2:08-CV-369 JCM (GWF)

8
Plaintiffs,

9
10

v.

11

OBTEEN N. NASSIRI, D.C., et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is defendants Nassiri, et. al.’s motion to reconsider magistrate’s

16

ruling. (Doc. #345). Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Co., et. al. filed an opposition. (Doc. #348).

17

Defendants then filed a reply. (Doc. #352).

18

Magistrate Judge Foley issued an order on July 21, 2011, granting in part and denying in part

19

defendants’ motion to strike complaint. (Doc. #342). In the order, the magistrate judge issued

20

sanctions against plaintiffs for their failure to timely disclose the method or formula used to calculate

21

the alleged damages. (Doc. #342). The magistrate judge denied defendants’ request to strike the

22

complaint. (Doc. #342). Specifically, the court stated that it would “not grant the severe sanctions

23

requested by the [d]efendants” but would instead award “attorney’s fees and costs [as] an appropriate

24

lesser sanction pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1)(A) . . . .” (Doc. #342). In the instant motion, defendants

25

seek to strike plaintiffs’ complaint for damages as a sanction for plaintiffs’ untimely filing of

26

discovery materials. (Doc. #352).

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

When reviewing the magistrate judge’s order, this court determines whether it is clearly

2

erroneous or contrary to law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); Local Rule IB 3-1. The magistrate judge’s

3

order is “clearly erroneous” if this court is left with “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake

4

has been committed.” See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Burdick

5

v. Comm’r IRS, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). However, “[w]hen reviewing discovery

6

disputes . . . the [m]agistrate is afforded broad discretion, which will be overruled only if abused.”

7

Tafas v. Dudas, 530 F. Supp. 2d 786, 792 (E.D. Va. 2008). The district court defers to the

8

magistrate’s discovery sanctions orders “unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

9

Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991).

10

Defendants state in their moving papers that “the [m]agistrate [j]udge has the discretion not

11

to impose an evidence preclusion sanction . . . .” (Doc. #345). Thus, defendants’ motion can only

12

be based on their assertion that the magistrate judge abused his discretion.1

13

This court does not agree with defendants that the magistrate judge abused his discretion.

14

First, the court does not endorse defendants’ interpretation of the magistrate judge’s order as

15

internally inconsistent. The well-reasoned decision does not reflect defendants’ absolutist reading.

16

Second, defendants’ assertions of abuse of discretion are unconvincing. In light of the acrimonious

17

discovery process in this case, the magistrate judge’s order is a clear attempt to appropriately

18

admonish the parties while simultaneously moving the discovery process forward.

19

Accordingly,

20

...

21

...

22

...

23

...

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Indeed, it is not entirely clear that the magistrate judge even had the authority to issue the
order defendants’ requested. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (stating that if the matter is dispositive, a
magistrate judge “must enter a recommended disposition”); see also Grimes, 951 F.2d at 240.
Defendants’ motion sought to strike plaintiffs’ complaint for damages and enter default. (See Doc.
#312).
-2-

1
2
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants Nassiri, et. al.’s
motion to reconsider magistrate’s ruling (doc. #345) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED this 17th day of October, 2011.

4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-