Makransky v. Doto et al

Filing 63

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)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

JOHN MAKRANSKY,

7
8
9

Case No. 2:16-CV-563 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
DAVID DOTO, et al.,

10

Defendant(s).

11
12

Presently before the court is defendant Jenna Wells-Doto’s motion for this court to

13

reconsider Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s denial of defendant’s request to stay discovery and grant

14
15
16

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

17

legally untenable; (3) the magistrate judge clearly erred when granting plaintiff’s motion to

18

compel, seeking financial records spanning several years from defendant; and (4) the imposition

19

of sanctions was improper because there was substantial justification for defendant’s position.

20

(ECF No. 39).

21

The court reviews a motion to reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling under the “clearly

22

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

23
24
25
26

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

27

judge, magistrate judges are given broad discretion on discovery matters and should not be

28

overruled absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted)).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

On January 27, 2017, this court denied co-defendant David Doto and Jenna Wells-Doto’s

2

motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 56). Accordingly, defendant’s first two arguments are fruitless or

3

moot.

4
5
6
7
8

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).

9

Finally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) provides that if a motion to compel

10

discovery is granted, “the court must . . . require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated

11

the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable

12

expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”

13

elaborates that the court cannot order payment if “the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response,

14
15
16

Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(ii)

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.

17

Aug. 20, 2013), is unpersuasive because that case provides few factual details comparable to this

18

case. In light of plaintiff’s factual allegations, this court is not “left with the definite and firm

19

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. at 395.

20

Accordingly,

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant’s motion for

22
23
24
25

the district court to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order (ECF No. 39) be, and the same hereby
is, DENIED.
DATED February 15, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-2-