COHAN v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., 2:13-cv-00975-LDG (CWH). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150331866
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER LLOYD D. GEORGE , District Judge . The plaintiff, Jonathan Cohan, has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying, in part, his motion to compel discovery (#83). The defendants, Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. and Unum Group, oppose (#90). This Court may "modify or set aside any part of the [Magistrate Judge's] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Following consideration of the parties' brief
Summary: ORDER LLOYD D. GEORGE , District Judge . The plaintiff, Jonathan Cohan, has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying, in part, his motion to compel discovery (#83). The defendants, Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. and Unum Group, oppose (#90). This Court may "modify or set aside any part of the [Magistrate Judge's] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Following consideration of the parties' briefs..
More
ORDER
LLOYD D. GEORGE, District Judge.
The plaintiff, Jonathan Cohan, has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying, in part, his motion to compel discovery (#83). The defendants, Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. and Unum Group, oppose (#90).
This Court may "modify or set aside any part of the [Magistrate Judge's] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). Following consideration of the parties' briefs on the motion to compel, and having heard oral arguments on the motion, and having performed in camera review of the documents that Cohan sought to compel the defendants to produce, the Magistrate Judge determined the documents were not relevant. Cohan has not shown that this determination was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly,
THE COURT ORDERS that Plaintiff's Objections in Part to Order of Magistrate Judge Denying in Part Motion to Compel Discovery From Defendants (#83) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
