Makransky v. Doto et al
ORDER Denying 39 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/15/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:16-CV-563 JCM (CWH)
DAVID DOTO, et al.,
Presently before the court is defendant Jenna Wells-Doto’s motion for this court to
reconsider Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s denial of defendant’s request to stay discovery and grant
of plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 42),
and no reply was filed.
Defendant argues that this court’s reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order is
appropriate because: (1) a potentially dispositive motion had been filed; (2) plaintiff’s claims are
legally untenable; (3) the magistrate judge clearly erred when granting plaintiff’s motion to
compel, seeking financial records spanning several years from defendant; and (4) the imposition
of sanctions was improper because there was substantial justification for defendant’s position.
(ECF No. 39).
The court reviews a motion to reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling under the “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see also
Anderson v. Equifax Info. Services LLC, 2007 WL 2412249, at *1 (D. Or. 2007) (“Though Section
636(b)(1)(A) has been interpreted to permit de novo review of the legal findings of a magistrate
judge, magistrate judges are given broad discretion on discovery matters and should not be
overruled absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted)).
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
On January 27, 2017, this court denied co-defendant David Doto and Jenna Wells-Doto’s
motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 56). Accordingly, defendant’s first two arguments are fruitless or
Next, this court found that “[t]he e-mail communications between the parties, as argued in
the amended complaint, contain sufficient non-conclusory factual allegations to establish Mrs.
Wells-Doto as a party to the underlying contract.” (Id. at 5). In light of the corresponding
allegation that plaintiff provided money to defendants from October 2013 to April 2015, this court
cannot find that the magistrate judge clearly erred by ordering discovery as to Ms. Wells-Doto’s
finances over an extended period. (ECF No. 17).
Finally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) provides that if a motion to compel
discovery is granted, “the court must . . . require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated
the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable
expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”
elaborates that the court cannot order payment if “the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response,
or objection was substantially justified.”
Plaintiff has itemized six reasons why the magistrate’s sanctions were appropriate, and Ms.
Wells-Doto has failed to address them. See (ECF No. 42). Moreover, defendant’s offered citation
to Allstate Ins. Co. v. Balle, No. 2:10-CV-02205-APG-NJK, 2013 WL 4501016, at *2 (D. Nev.
Aug. 20, 2013), is unpersuasive because that case provides few factual details comparable to this
case. In light of plaintiff’s factual allegations, this court is not “left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. at 395.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant’s motion for
the district court to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order (ECF No. 39) be, and the same hereby
DATED February 15, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?