Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01946/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01946-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332oc Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1946-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR RELIEF (DOCKET NO.

137) FROM NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE (DOCKET NO. 124)

vs.

JB COLLISION SERVICES, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

Defendants filed a motion for relief from a nondispositive order issued by Magistrate

Judge Gallo. (Docket No. 137 (requesting relief from order at Docket No. 124).) Defendants

argue that they should be granted additional time for their expert to complete testing of wet

paint samples and to supplement his report to reflect the results of the testing. Pointing to

previous discovery extensions, admonitions that the discovery schedule wouldn't be

extended absent good cause, and Defendants' unexcused delay in retaining their expert,

Judge Gallo denied Defendants' request. (Docket no. 124.)

Motions for relief from a nondispositive orders of a magistrate judge will be granted

only where the moving party demonstrates that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. See Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th

Cir. 1991) ("the magistrate's decision on a nondispositive issue will be reviewed by the

district judge under the clearly erroneous standard”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ("The district judge

- 1 - 13cv1946

Case 3:13-cv-01946-LAB-WVG Document 178 Filed 07/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that

is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law."). "In finding that the magistrate judge's decision

is 'clearly erroneous,' the Court must arrive at a definite and firm conviction that a mistake

has been committed." Wi–Lan, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 2011 WL 841271, *1 (N.D.Cal.

Mar. 8, 2011) (internal citation omitted). "This standard is extremely deferential and the

magistrate's rulings should be considered the final decisions of the district court." Id.

(brackets omitted).

Judge Gallo's ruling is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Defendants' entire

case is built around the premise that Sherwin-Williams' provided them with substandard paint

products. Thus, as Judge Gallo explained, "[t]he need for an expert was not a surprise to

anyone." (Docket no. 124 at 19.) Defendants had ample opportunity to assess whether an

expert was needed and, if so, to retain one well before the close of discovery. But they didn't

retain their expert until the last day to designate experts. (Id. at 18.) Defendants' scheduling

issues arose out of their own lack of diligence. Their motion is DENIED.

Within two days of this order, the parties should contact Judge Gallo to reschedule the

mandatory settlement conference. (Docket no. 140.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 16, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv1946

Case 3:13-cv-01946-LAB-WVG Document 178 Filed 07/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2