Arlin Geophysical v. U.S., 2:08-cv-414-DN-EJF. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20140505e05
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 02, 2014
Latest Update: May 02, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION DAVID NUFFER, District Judge. 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 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 ).
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION DAVID NUFFER, District Judge. 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 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 ). O..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION
DAVID NUFFER, District Judge.
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 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
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.
FootNotes
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).
Source: Leagle
