Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05286/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05286-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TUTOR-SALIBA CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-02-5286 CW (EMC)

ORDER RE SPECIAL MASTER’S

RECOMMENDATION RE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

AND FOR SANCTIONS

(Docket No. 471)

On August 11, 2005, the Special Master in this case, Justice Hanlon, issued a

recommendation for an order granting and denying the Tutor Defendants’ motion to compel and for

sanctions. See Docket No. 717 (recommendation, filed on 8/11/05). Neither party filed an objection

to the recommendation. See Docket No. 374 (order, filed on 9/7/04) (allowing a party to file an

objection to a ruling of the special master within ten days from the time the ruling is served).

The Court has reviewed the recommendation de novo; finds it correct, well reasoned, and

thorough; and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and

DENIES in part the Tutor Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 731 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

In the future, the Court notes that Justice Hanlon’s rulings on discovery, unless addressing a

potentially dispositive matter (e.g., preclusion sanctions) should be considered orders instead of

recommendations. Thus, in this instance, although the Court has issued this order on the motion to

compel and for sanctions, Justice Hanlon’s “recommendation” should have properly been considered

an order (subject to “appeal” to this Court).

This order disposes of Docket No. 471.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2005

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 731 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 2