Filed: Jun. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD G. KOPF , Senior District Judge . In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 15, 2019 (Filing No. 126), Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart: (1) granted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 109) in part and ordered Defendant to produce the Taylor-Riley investigatory file regarding a related plaintiff's claim for Plaintiff Giles's review; (2) denied the remainder of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; and (3) granted the parties' request for extensio
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD G. KOPF , Senior District Judge . In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 15, 2019 (Filing No. 126), Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart: (1) granted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 109) in part and ordered Defendant to produce the Taylor-Riley investigatory file regarding a related plaintiff's claim for Plaintiff Giles's review; (2) denied the remainder of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; and (3) granted the parties' request for extension..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge.
In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 15, 2019 (Filing No. 126), Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart: (1) granted Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 109) in part and ordered Defendant to produce the Taylor-Riley investigatory file regarding a related plaintiff's claim for Plaintiff Giles's review; (2) denied the remainder of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; and (3) granted the parties' request for extension of certain progression deadlines as to the first phase of discovery. On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a lengthy Statement of Objections (Filing No. 127) to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order.
Consistent with past practice, Plaintiff filed a 27-page brief in support of the Statement of Objections (Filing No. 128), and Defendants filed a six-page opposing brief on June 12, 2019 (Filing No. 129). This is basically Plaintiff's second set of objections regarding the scope of the first phase of discovery, a subject which has already been extensively briefed, objected to, and considered. (See Filing No. 129 at CM/ECF pp. 2-4 (Defendants' concise summary of motions and briefing on discovery issues).) Keeping in mind that "[i]n discovery matters, the magistrate judge is afforded great deference," Sikora v. Nat'l Indem. Co., No. 8:13CV68, 2013 WL 5524551, at *2 (D. Neb. Oct. 4, 2013); Hajek v. Kumho Tire Co., No. 4:08CV3157, 2010 WL 1292447, at *2 (D. Neb. Mar. 30, 2010) (same), Plaintiff's objections that phased discovery is now moot and unnecessary, "should never [have] been proposed by Defendant,"1 wastes time, is expensive,2 and is too limited and that a search of electronic information "as proposed by the Defendant . . . was flawed from the outset and produced wholly irrelevant information"3 do not constitute clear error.
Accordingly, and after careful review conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), I find that the challenged Memorandum and Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Statement of Objections (Filing No. 127) is denied.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order entered on May 15, 2019 (Filing No. 126) is sustained and shall not be disturbed.
