ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 73

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

Before the court is plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell's motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2 for relief from two discovery orders issued by Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore.

A district court's review of a magistrate judge's pretrial order is conducted under a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is "entitled to great deference." Doubt v. NCR Corp., No. 09-cv-5917-SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A district court should not overturn a magistrate judge's order simply because it "might have weighed differently the various interests and equities," but rather the district court "must ascertain whether the order was contrary to law." See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).

The court finds nothing in Judge Westmore's orders that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Indeed, in all respects, Judge Westmore's order appears correct. In addition, plaintiff's objection to Judge Westmore's March 6, 2019 order, see Dkt. 71, appears to be moot because plaintiff has already filed a response that seemingly complies with that order. Compare Dkt. 71 at 4 with Dkt. 74. Accordingly, plaintiff's objections are overruled, and the motion is DENIED.

The court also DENIES plaintiff's request that all future matters be heard by this court rather than by Judge Westmore. Pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, this action remains referred to Judge Westmore for resolution of all discovery disputes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.