Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Randall Huck v. Kone

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


August 3, 2011

RANDALL HUCK,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
KONE, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 11, 2011, plaintiff Huck filed an objection to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive 20 pretrial Order denying plaintiff's motion to compel. This Court set a briefing schedule. Upon 21 review of the underlying Order and the parties' briefing, it is clear the objection must be overruled.

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION

A District Court may set aside or modify a Magistrate Judge's ruling on a non-dispositive 24 matter if the order is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Huck contends 26 the Magistrate Judge's Order denying his motion to compel "failed to apply" Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure 26 and 34 or "any other" legal authority. (Pl.'s Mt. at 2:6-8.) In his motion to compel 28 responses to his requests for production of documents, Huck lodged two complaints. First, he argued Kone had failed to produce all documents responsive to his request, such as his complete 2 personnel record. Second, Huck complained that he had not received a privilege log from Kone, 3 despite the fact that the defendant objected to certain discovery requests on the grounds that the 4 information sought was proprietary. In response, Kone informed the Court that it had produced 5 documents in response to Huck's request on two occasions: the first on April 9, 2011 and the second 6 on June 9, 2011. It professed to have produced all documents in its control and possession 7 responsive to Huck's request. Further, it represented that it continues efforts to locate any further 8 documents. As to its objections, Kone explained that it has not withheld any documents based upon 9 them. The Magistrate Judge, finding no evidence that any responsive documents had in fact been 10 withheld, much less that they were withheld improperly, denied the motion to compel and found the privilege log objection moot. Although Huck plainly disagrees with that finding, he presents no explanation as to how it was "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to" the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Huck had a full and fair opportunity to brief his motion, his complaints were considered, and the Magistrate Judge found that Kone had complied with its discovery obligations. There is no 15 supportable reason to overturn that decision, and Huck's objection is overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110803

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.