Truman v. Orem City et al

Filing 101

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE: This matter is before the Court on Defendants Objection to the Magistrate Judges Decision. On February 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge Furse granted in part and denied in part a motion to quash a subpoena filed by Ronald YengichPlaintiffs former counsel.In this case, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Judge Furses decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It is therefore ORDERED th at Defendants Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision 79 is OVERRULED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff supplement his privilege log in compliance withMagistrate Judge Furses Decision 78 within 15 days of this Order. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/30/19. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

CONRAD TRUMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
OREM CITY, a Utah municipality; OREM
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, a division
of Orem City; OREM CITY POLICE
OFFICER THOMAS WALLACE, an
individual; OREM CITY POLICE
OFFICER WILLIAM CROOK, an
individual; OREM CITY POLICE
OFFICER ORLANDO RUIZ, an
individual; OREM CITY POLICE
OFFICER ART LOPEZ, an individual;
OREM CITY POLICE OFFICER TODD
FERRE, an individual; UTAH COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, a division of
Utah County; DEPUTY UTAH COUNTY
ATTORNEY CRAIG JOHNSON, an
individual; OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE 1 -10, individuals; and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5,
individuals.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING
OBJECTION TO ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 2:17-CV-775 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
Decision. On February 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge Furse granted in part and denied in part a
motion to quash a subpoena filed by Ronald Yengich—Plaintiff’s former counsel.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge reviewing a magistrate
judge’s order on nondispositive matters “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside

any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” 1 This requires that the Court
be “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 2
In this case, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Judge Furse’s decision was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision (Docket No. 79) is
OVERRULED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff supplement his privilege log in compliance with Magistrate Judge
Furse’s Decision (Docket No. 78) within 15 days of this Order.
DATED this 30th day of April, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

1

See also, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial
matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s
order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”).

2

Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).