Filed: Mar. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's appeal of the Magistrate Judge's order denying in part Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 129). In his Order, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of Plaintiff's prior motion to compel as to certain discovery items. (Doc. 120). The Magistrate Judge further ordered Defendants to respond to the motion for reconsideration as to other discovery
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's appeal of the Magistrate Judge's order denying in part Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 129). In his Order, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of Plaintiff's prior motion to compel as to certain discovery items. (Doc. 120). The Magistrate Judge further ordered Defendants to respond to the motion for reconsideration as to other discovery ..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's appeal of the Magistrate Judge's order denying in part Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 129). In his Order, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of Plaintiff's prior motion to compel as to certain discovery items. (Doc. 120). The Magistrate Judge further ordered Defendants to respond to the motion for reconsideration as to other discovery items sought by Plaintiff. (Doc. 120). Ultimately, the Magistrate Judge granted in part reconsideration as to the items to which the Magistrate Judge ordered a response, but those items are not at issue in this appeal. (Doc. 128).
As is relevant for this appeal, the Magistrate Judge denied reconsideration as to:
this Court's Order filed on July 24, 2017 (Doc. 97) as to Defendant Ryan's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Non-Uniform Interrogatories (Doc. 100 at 13-17 (Exh. 1)); and as to Defendant Sandoval's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of NonUniform Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Id. at 19-30 (Exh. 2)).
(Doc. 120 at 2).
In his appeal, Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate Judge ordered Defendants to either make specific (as opposed to generalized) objections Plaintiff's discovery requests, or to supplement their responses. (Doc. 129 at 3). Plaintiff further claims that Defendants opted to supplement their responses rather than file specific objections. (Id. at 3-4). Finally, Plaintiff claims that the supplement was not "really" a supplement in that Defendants just re-disclosed the same materials they had previously disclosed. (Id. at 4-5). Thus, Plaintiff concludes that the Magistrate Judge committed clear error in denying his motion for reconsideration because the supplement is inadequate. (Doc. 20 at 4).1
The Court notes that while Plaintiff primarily claims that the supplement is not adequate, Plaintiff does concede that some additional information was disclosed. (Doc. 129 at 5, "The supplemental response to [Plaintiff's non-uniform interrogatories] No. 1, though in italics, is merely the tautologicalation of Ryan's initial response with a dash of case law citation."). Further, and more importantly, in this appeal Plaintiff offers no explanation of what additional information was sought and not disclosed. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that the Magistrate Judge committed clear error when Plaintiff has failed to identify any additional information that was sought, but not disclosed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the objection/appeal (Doc. 129) to the Magistrate Judge's Order of January 24, 2018 (Doc. 120) is overruled to the extent that Doc. 120 is affirmed.
