Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:18-cv-01402
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten, Judge Hamilton denied Purnell’s request to overturn a magistrate judge’s discovery order.
Georgette G. Purnell must comply with the discovery requirements and additional deposition time described in the magistrate judge’s order; Rudolph and Sletten Inc. is the opposing party.
What happened
In Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc., Georgette G. Purnell asked the district court to review a magistrate judge’s order concerning discovery.
The court found no clear error or legal mistake in requiring Purnell to provide responsive documents and participate in five additional hours of deposition. Purnell did not dispute her general lack of responsiveness during the earlier 10 hours of deposition and did not identify specific evidence of bias.
Judge Hamilton denied the motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order.
The detailed version
- Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc. · No. 4:18-cv-01402
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 23, 2019
Background
Georgette G. Purnell moved under Civil Local Rule 72-2 for review of a non-dispositive discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore on August 27, 2019. The order required Purnell to meet her discovery obligations, including producing responsive documents in her possession, and allowed five additional hours of deposition time after an earlier 10-hour deposition.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may overturn a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Discovery rulings receive great deference, and disagreement about how the interests and equities were weighed is not enough to overturn the order.
Ruling
The court found nothing in Judge Westmore’s orders that was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court also noted that Purnell did not contest her general non-responsiveness during the earlier deposition and had not expressly identified anything in the record showing bias or otherwise justifying broader review. Judge Hamilton therefore denied the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.