Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402-15/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. 133

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

reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 72-2 from a non-dispositive discovery order issued

by Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore on August 19, 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 order appears correct. An independent 

medical examination may be appropriate when a party has put its mental health at issue. 

Further, limiting access to such examination for purpose of preserving its accuracy is also 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 140 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

legitimate, particularly where, as here, such examination may be recorded and thereby 

subsequently reviewed by plaintiff’s preferred doctor. 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 140 Filed 09/23/19 Page 2 of 2