BENNETT v. SKC INVESTMENT, INC., 3:13-cv-01386-HU. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20140606d89
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge Magistrate Judge Hubel granted [23] Plaintiff Bryan Bennett's Motion To Compel Discovery [17] in part, and denied the rest with leave to renew. Mr. Bennett filed objections [24]. Defendants SKC Investments, Inc. ("SKC"), and Mitchell Stanley responded [27]. DISCUSSION Parties may file objections to a magistrate judge's order on nondispositive pretrial matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). On review of the magistrate judge's order, the district co
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge Magistrate Judge Hubel granted [23] Plaintiff Bryan Bennett's Motion To Compel Discovery [17] in part, and denied the rest with leave to renew. Mr. Bennett filed objections [24]. Defendants SKC Investments, Inc. ("SKC"), and Mitchell Stanley responded [27]. DISCUSSION Parties may file objections to a magistrate judge's order on nondispositive pretrial matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). On review of the magistrate judge's order, the district cou..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge
Magistrate Judge Hubel granted [23] Plaintiff Bryan Bennett's Motion To Compel Discovery [17] in part, and denied the rest with leave to renew. Mr. Bennett filed objections [24]. Defendants SKC Investments, Inc. ("SKC"), and Mitchell Stanley responded [27].
DISCUSSION
Parties may file objections to a magistrate judge's order on nondispositive pretrial matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). On review of the magistrate judge's order, the district court must "modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (permitting reconsideration of a magistrate's nondispositive pretrial order only if "clearly erroneous or contrary to law"). Clear error has occurred where the reviewing court is "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). This standard of review reflects the broad discretion that magistrate judges enjoy on nondispositive pretrial matters. Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 670 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1167 (D. Or. 2009) (citing Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Because I find that Judge Hubel's order [23] is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, I decline to disturb it. Mr. Bennett's objections are overruled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
