Filed: Sep. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 46) recommending that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 17) should be DENIED. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court must make a de nova determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 46) recommending that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 17) should be DENIED. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court must make a de nova determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l)..
More
ORDER
ANN AIKEN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 46) recommending that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 17) should be DENIED. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court must make a de nova determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the F&R (doc. 48), and defendant filed a timely response to those objections (doc. 52). Thus, I review the F&R de nova.
Plaintiff avers that Judge Russo erred in ordering an adverse inference instruction to the fact-finder in this case as a sanction for spoliation of evidence. Specifically, Judge Russo opined that:
[A]lthough dismissal is inappropriate in this case, the Court orders an adverse inference instruction based on the following findings: (1) plaintiff had control over the Siamez and an obligation to preserve the vessel at the time it was destroyed; (2) plaintiff authorized the destruction of the Siamez with a sufficiently culpable state of mind because he had notice of potential relevance of the Siamez to this litigation; and (3) the Siamez was relevant evidence to the defense of plaintiff's claim because without the vessel defendant is prejudiced in defending against plaintiff's claim.
F&R at *15. (internal quotations omitted.)
I agree with Judge Russo's analysis of the issue and her findings outlined above. I also conclude that she was correct in her use of the factors outlined in Justice v. Rockwell Collins, Inc. and her holding that those factors are satisfied in this case. 117 F.Supp.3d 1119, 1130-31 (D. Or. 2015), aff'd, 2017 WL 6559788 (9th Cir. 2017). In sum, I find no error in Judge Russo's F&R.
Thus, I adopt Magistrate Judge Russo's F&R (doc. 46) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 17) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
