Bennett v. SKC Investment, Inc. et al

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER: Because I find that Judge Hubels order 23 is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, I decline to disturb it. Mr. Bennetts objections are overruled. Signed on 6/4/14 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
BRYAN BENNETT,
No. 3:13-cv-01386-HU
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
SKC INVESTMENT, INC., dba Club
Heat, and MITCHELL STANLEY,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
Magistrate Judge Hubel granted [23] Plaintiff Bryan Bennett’s Motion To Compel
Discovery [17] in part, and denied the rest with leave to renew. Mr. Bennett filed objections
[24]. Defendants SKC Investments, Inc. (“SKC”), and Mitchell Stanley responded [27].
DISCUSSION
Parties may file objections to a magistrate judge’s order on nondispositive pretrial
matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). On review of the magistrate judge’s order, the district court must
“modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.; see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (permitting reconsideration of a magistrate’s nondispositive
pretrial order only if “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”). Clear error has occurred where the
reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333
U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). This standard of review reflects the broad discretion that magistrate
judges enjoy on nondispositive pretrial matters. Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland,
670 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1167 (D. Or. 2009) (citing Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th
Cir. 2002)).
Because I find that Judge Hubel’s order [23] is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to
law, I decline to disturb it. Mr. Bennett’s objections are overruled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

4th

day of June, 2014.

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER