Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Randall Huck v. Kone
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
August 3, 2011
KONE, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
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.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.
Buy This Entire Record For