ORDER

KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge.

On February 10, 2012, the magistrate judge issued an order granting plaintiff's motion to compel an inspection of defendant's facility and imposing sanctions in the amount of $2,468.75, payable to plaintiff's counsel, for defendant's failure to appear at the hearing on the motion to compel. Defendant has filed a motion to reconsider both parts of the order as well as a motion to stay pending resolution of the motion to reconsider.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), this court evaluates a magistrate judge's resolution of a pretrial matter to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004); Morgan v. Doran, 2007 WL 430722, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2007).

After reviewing the record in this case, the court does not find the magistrate judge's decision as to the motion to compel to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As noted, defendant did not object in writing to plaintiff's request for a site inspection. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A).

On the record before it, however, the court cannot make a final determination as to whether the imposition of sanctions for counsel's failure to appear at the hearing before the magistrate judge is fully supported. Defendant's counsel has provided information showing he informed plaintiff's counsel on two separate occasions that he would be in trial and therefore unavailable on the hearing date noticed by plaintiff. Plaintiff's counsel has not explained whether he informed the magistrate judge of defense counsel's trial obligations or why he determined to proceed with the hearing and request sanctions on that date.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's request for reconsideration (ECF No. 38) is denied in part, as to the magistrate judge's order granting plaintiff's motion to compel;

2. A ruling on defendant's request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's sanctions order is deferred. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to show cause within fourteen days of the date of this order why he did not reschedule the hearing on the motion to compel and why he requested sanctions after defendant's counsel twice informed him he would be in trial and therefore unavailable to appear on the hearing date; and

3. Defendant's motion for stay (ECF No. 43) is denied as to the inspection granted by the magistrate judge's order, and otherwise denied as moot in light of the court's order to show cause issued above.