Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. et al v. Continental Casualty Company et al

Filing 181

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Papaks recommendation, except as regards Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment 67 . Except as noted, I ADOPT the conclusions of the F&R 124 as my own opinion. Plaintiffs motion fo r partial summary judgment 67 is DENIED in entirety because resolution of the issues raised is premature. Plaintiffs motion for leave to supplement the evidentiary record 118 is DENIED. Defendants motion for partial summary judgment 70 is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion to compel 84 is GRANTED IN PART. Additionally, defendants motion to strike 134 plaintiffs response to the objections is DENIED. Signed on 9/5/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES,
INC., et al.,
No. 3:10-cv-01174-PK
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On March 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) [124] in the above-captioned case, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for partial
summary judgment [67] be granted in part and denied in part. Judge Papak also recommended
that plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement the evidentiary record [118] be denied and
defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment be denied [70]. Lastly, Judge Papak
recommended that plaintiff’s motion to compel [84] be granted in part. Defendants filed
objections [131] and plaintiffs responded [133]. Defendants also filed a motion to strike [134]
plaintiffs’ response to the objections.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the
court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are
addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to
review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to
accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendation, except as regards Plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment [67]. Except as noted, I ADOPT the conclusions of the
F&R [124] as my own opinion. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment [67] is
DENIED in entirety because resolution of the issues raised is premature. Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to supplement the evidentiary record [118] is DENIED. Defendants’ motion for partial
summary judgment [70] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel [84] is GRANTED IN
PART. Additionally, defendants’ motion to strike [134] plaintiffs’ response to the objections is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

5th

day of September, 2012.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman
.
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court

2 – OPINION AND ORDER