McDonald v. OnPoint Community Credit Union et al

Filing 78

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation 64 , and therefore Equifax's Motion for Sanctions 59 is denied. Signed on 10/20/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DAVID MCDONALD,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:16-cv-01649-YY
ORDER

v.

ONPOINT COMMUNITY CREDIT
UNION, et al.,
Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued a Findings & Recommendation [64] on August
4, 2017, recommending that Defendant Equifax’s Motion for Sanctions [59] be denied. Equifax
has timely filed objections [66] to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before
the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &
Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the

1 – ORDER

Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered Equifax’s objections and concludes there is no basis
to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions
of the record de novo and find no errors in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(5)(A)(ii)–(iii), the court is not required to award
sanctions when a discovery motion is granted if “the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response,
or objection was substantially justified; or other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust.” Here, Magistrate Judge You recognized that Plaintiff suffered several heart attacks
during this discovery dispute. In addition, Plaintiff hired new counsel who obtained hard copies
of the disputed medical records dating back to the 1990s from Plaintiff’s garage. Plaintiff’s new
counsel scanned the records, classified them, and submitted them to opposing counsel.
Accordingly, the Court is convinced that Magistrate Judge You satisfied Rule 37’s requirements
by identifying circumstances justifying Plaintiff’s tardy disclosure and making an award of
Equifax’s expenses unjust.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You’s Findings & Recommendation [64], and
therefore, Equifax’s Motion for Sanctions [59] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _______ day of ____________________, 2017.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
2 – ORDER