Filed: Mar. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT BREGMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING ON WHETHER DEFENDANTS MAY CONDUCT DISCOVERY INTO PLAINTIFFS' MOTIVES FOR BRINGING LAWSUIT AND CORRUPTION IN THE MARTINEZ ADMINISTRATION WILLIAM P. JOHNSON , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Bregman's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Whether Defendants Can Conduct Discovery into Plaintiffs' Motives for Bringing the Lawsuit and Corruption in the Martinez
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT BREGMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING ON WHETHER DEFENDANTS MAY CONDUCT DISCOVERY INTO PLAINTIFFS' MOTIVES FOR BRINGING LAWSUIT AND CORRUPTION IN THE MARTINEZ ADMINISTRATION WILLIAM P. JOHNSON , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Bregman's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Whether Defendants Can Conduct Discovery into Plaintiffs' Motives for Bringing the Lawsuit and Corruption in the Martinez A..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT BREGMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING ON WHETHER DEFENDANTS MAY CONDUCT DISCOVERY INTO PLAINTIFFS' MOTIVES FOR BRINGING LAWSUIT AND CORRUPTION IN THE MARTINEZ ADMINISTRATION
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Bregman's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Whether Defendants Can Conduct Discovery into Plaintiffs' Motives for Bringing the Lawsuit and Corruption in the Martinez Administration on January 11, 2016 [Doc. 350], filed January 28, 2016. Defendant Wetherbee joined the objections on the same day [Doc. 353], and Defendant Corwin joined the objections on January 29, 2016, [Doc. 354]. Having considered the Objections, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully informedand advised, the Court finds that Defendant Bregman's Objections are not timely and are therefore OVERRULED.
Background
On January 11, 2016, the Honorable Stephan M. Vidmar, United States Magistrate Judge, held a hearing on, among other issues, the proper substantive and temporal scope of discovery in this case. [Doc. 321]. At the end of that hearing, the Magistrate Judge ruled in part that no discovery would be allowed on "[Pl]aintiffs' motives for bringing the lawsuit . . . [or] whether there is or was corruption in Governor Martinez's administration." Hrg. Tr. 213:8-14. The Order memorializing this ruling was filed on January 13, 2016. [Doc. 323] at 2 ("No party may conduct discovery on Plaintiffs' motivation for bringing this lawsuit, alleged past or present corruption in Governor Susana Martinez's administration. . . ."). Defendant Bregman filed his objections to this ruling fifteen days later, on January 28, 2016. [Doc. 350].
Timeliness of Objections
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) requires parties to "serve and file objections to the [Magistrate Judge's order on a non-dispositive matter] within 14 days after being served with a copy" of the order. Under this Rule, Defendant Bregman had until January 27, 2016, to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order. The Notice of Electronic Filing indicates that Defendant Bregman filed these particular objections on January 28, 2016. Defendant Bregman's objections are untimely.
Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Bregman's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Whether Defendants Can Conduct Discovery into Plaintiffs' Motives for Bringing the Lawsuit and Corruption in the Martinez Administration on January 11, 2016 [Doc. 350] are OVERRULED.
