Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 136

Before the court is plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell’s motion for review under Civil 

Local Rule 72-2 from a non-dispositive discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge 

Kandis Westmore on August 27, 2019.

A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order is conducted under a 

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate 

judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is “entitled to great deference.” Doubt v. NCR 

Corp., No. 09–cv–5917–SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A 

district court should not overturn a magistrate judge’s order simply because it “might have 

weighed differently the various interests and equities,” but rather the district court “must 

ascertain whether the order was contrary to law.” See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 

1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The court finds nothing in Judge Westmore’s orders that is clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law. Instead, Judge Westmore’s orders appear correct and appropriate given 

the circumstances at hand. Plaintiff must satisfy her discovery obligations, including 

providing individual responses to various documents requests and producing all 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 141 Filed 09/23/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

responsive documents in her possession. Given that plaintiff does not contest her 

general non-responsiveness during her prior 10 hours of deposition, Judge Westmore’s 

order for an additional five hours of deposition time is also well-placed. Lastly, plaintiff 

failed to expressly identify anything in the record suggesting bias or that would otherwise 

justify its broader review. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2019

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 141 Filed 09/23/19 Page 2 of 2