Heyman v. State of Nevada ex rel Board of Regents for the Nevada System of Higher Education et al

Filing 422

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 188 Magistrate Judge Foley's ruling is affirmed in its entirety, and 205 Heyman's objection is overruled. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/22/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DARREN HEYMAN,
4

Plaintiff

5 v.
6 STATE OF NEVADA EX REL. BOARD OF
REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF
7 HIGHER EDUCATION ON BEHALF OF
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS,
8 et al.,
9

Case No.: 2:15-cv-01228-APG-GWF
Order Overruling Plaintiff’s Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Order Granting
Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order
[ECF Nos. 188, 205]

Defendants
On September 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Foley granted the defendants’1 motion for a

10

11 protective order. ECF No. 188. Plaintiff Darren Heyman objected to that ruling, arguing that
12 (1) the defendants’ motion violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) and Local Rule 2613 7(c) because it did not outline the defendants’ efforts to confer with Heyman; (2) the defendants’
14 motion was included in a supplement to a response, so Heyman was unable to file an opposition;
15 (3) Judge Foley’s ruling prevents Heyman from collecting evidence relevant to his claims; and
16 (4) Judge Foley’s ruling claimed that certain facts were undisputed when they are still
17 unresolved. ECF No. 205.
18

A magistrate judge’s ruling on a pretrial matter such as a protective order is “not subject

19 to de novo determination.” Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir.
20 1991) (quoting Merrit v. Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1017 (5th Cir. 1981)). I
21 reconsider the matter only if it “has been shown [that] the magistrate judge’s order is clearly
22
23
1

The motion for a protective order was filed by all the defendants except Rhonda Montgomery.

1 erroneous or is contrary to law.” Local Rule IB 3-1(a); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a); 28
2 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3

I have reviewed Judge Foley’s ruling, Heyman’s objection, and the underlying papers. The

4 defendants’ motion included a discussion of their “meet and confer” efforts (ECF No. 160 at 5-6);
5 the motion was included in a supplement pursuant to Judge Foley’s order (ECF No. 227-7 at 29,
6 33); Heyman was able to respond both in his own supplement and at a hearing before Judge Foley
7 (ECF No. 162; ECF No. 227-10 at 6); and Judge Foley provided extensive justifications for
8 concluding that the issues covered in the protective order were not relevant to Heyman’s
9 underlying claims (ECF No. 188 at 10-17). Judge Foley’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary
10 to law. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Foley’s ruling (ECF No. 188) is affirmed in its entirety, and
11 Heyman’s objection (ECF No. 205) is overruled.
12

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2019.

13
14

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

2