Robinson v. Renown Regional Medical Center et al

Filing 95

ORDER that Plaintiff's Objection to Denial of Rule 37(e) Sanctions ECF No. 67 is overruled. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

SHAUN ROBINSON

Case No. 3:16-cv-00372-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

v.
11
12
13

RENOWN REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of

16

evidence. (ECF No. 66.) Before the Court is Plaintiff Shaun Robinson’s Objection to

17

Denial of Rule 37(e) Sanctions (“Objection”). (ECF No. 67.) The Court has reviewed

18

Defendant’s response. (ECF No. 72.) For the reasons discussed herein, the Court

19

overrules Plaintiff’s Objection.

20

Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous” if

26

the court has “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See

27

United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Burdick v. Comm’r IRS,

28

979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or

1

misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Jadwin v. Cty. of Kern,

2

767 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F.

3

Supp. 2d 159, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). When reviewing the order, however, the magistrate

4

judge “is afforded broad discretion, which will be overruled only if abused.” Columbia

5

Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The district judge “may

6

not simply substitute its judgment” for that of the magistrate judge. Grimes v. City and

7

County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. BNS,

8

Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)).

9

The Magistrate Judge found that Defendant has demonstrated that the data

10

Plaintiff seeks—“’inbound/outbound’ calls made to and from Plaintiff, his coworkers, and

11

Tahoe Tower Telemetry 8 staff for his schedules [sic] day at Renown” (ECF No. 54 at

12

4)—which might have been maintained had ceased functioning as a data maintenance

13

device before 2014. (ECF No. 66 at 4.) The Magistrate Judge also rejected Plaintiff’s

14

contention that Defendant should have been put on notice that this information may be

15

relevant to his claim of gender harassment as alleged in his charge of discrimination filed

16

with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

17

Commission. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge’s

18

findings are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In fact, this Court agrees with the

19

Magistrate Judge’s findings.

20
21
22

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s Objection to Denial of Rule 37(e) Sanctions
(ECF No. 67) is overruled.
DATED THIS 23rd day of March 2018.

23
24
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2