Arlin Geophysical et al v. USA

Filing 403

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER overruling objection to magistrate judge decision. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 5/2/14 (alt)

DAVID B. BARLOW (#13117)
United States Attorney
JOHN K. MANGUM (#2072)
Assistant United States Attorney
District of Utah
LINDSAY L. CLAYTON
VIRGINIA CRONAN LOWE
RICK WATSON
Trial Attorneys, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 683
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0683
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF UTAH

ARLIN GEOPHYSICAL & LAURA OLSON, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Defendant & Counterclaim Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
JOHN E. WORTHEN, et al.,
)
)
Counterclaim Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DECISION
Case No. 2:08-cv-414-DN-EJF
David Nuffer
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse

On October 31, 2012, Magistrate Judge Furse entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part a motion by the United States for sanctions against attorney Stephen G. Homer

1

based on his failure to attend his properly scheduled deposition (Docket No. 357). On November
28, 2012, in compliance with that Order, the United States submitted its statement of expenses
(Docket No. 360). On March 24, 2014, Magistrate Judge Furse entered two Orders granting the
United States’ motions for attorneys’ fees against Mr. Homer (Docket Nos. 399 and 400). On
March 31, 2014, Mr. Homer filed an objection to these two Orders (Docket No. 401). 1
“Magistrate judges have the power to award attorney fees as non-dispositive discovery
sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 636.” 2 The district court reviews the magistrate judge’s order
awarding fees under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review. 3 Under the
clearly erroneous standard, the district court must affirm the decision of the magistrate judge
unless the court “on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed” 4

1

Although Mr. Homer states that he is objecting to both March 24, 2014 orders [399& 400], he only presents facts
and argument relating to [400] which granted attorney’s fees for his failure to appear for his deposition.

2

Hutchinson v. Pfeil, No. 98-5043, 1999 WL 1015557, at *2 (10th Cir. Nov. 9, 1999).

3

Id.; see Ocelot Oil v. Corp. v. Sparrow Indus. 847 F.2d 1458, 1461-62 (10th Cir 1988).

4

Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642, 658 (10th Cir. 2006).

2

ORDER
Having read and considered the above referenced material, all related material, andMr.
Homer’s objection, the court concludes that the magistrate’s Orders were not clearly erroneous
or contrary to law, and for the reasons set out in the Orders, Mr. Homer’s objection is hereby
OVERRULED.
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT

______________________________________
David Nuffer
U.S. District Court Judge

3