Ciuffitelli et al v. Deloitte & Touche LLP et al

Filing 466

OPINION and ORDER - Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta's analysis, and I affirm his Order (ECF #421) denying Deloitte's Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Financial Condition and Damages Documents. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 21st day of February, 2019, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (peg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

LAWREN CE P. CIUFFITELLI, et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-00580-AC
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER
V.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN,J.,
On September 21, 2018, Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP's ("Deloitte") moved to
compel documents related to Plaintiffs' financial condition at the time of their Aequitas security
transactions and to Plaintiffs' damages claims. 1 [364]. On December 10, 2018, Judge Acosta
issued an Order on Defendant's Motion to Compel [421] that denied Deloitte's September 2018
Motion as well as a second motion to compel filed in October 2018. Deloitte filed objections
[431] to Judge Acosta's order denying the September 2018 motion to compel documents related
to Plaintiffs' financial condition. Plaintiffs filed a response [446] opposing Deloitte's objections.
DISCUSSION
When a magistrate judge has ruled on a non-dispositive matter, I may reconsider his
decision only if the objecting party has "shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly
The parties reached agreement regarding production of documents related to damages
claims before Judge Acosta issued his Order. [405].
1

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

en-oneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). I am
not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has
not objected. 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 with which I am required to review the
magistrate judge's decision depends on whether the matter is dispositive and whether objections
have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any pati of the magistrate
judge's recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C).
Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta's analysis, and I affam his Order [421]
denying Deloitte's Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Financial Condition and Damages
Documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ~

day of February, 2019.

Chief United

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

es District Judge