Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402-7/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. 73

Before the court is plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell’s motion pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 72-2 for relief from two discovery orders issued by Magistrate Judge Kandis 

Westmore. 

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. Indeed, in all respects, Judge Westmore’s order appears correct. In 

addition, plaintiff’s objection to Judge Westmore’s March 6, 2019 order, see Dkt. 71, 

appears to be moot because plaintiff has already filed a response that seemingly 

complies with that order. Compare Dkt. 71 at 4 with Dkt. 74. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 76 Filed 03/27/19 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

objections are overruled, and the motion is DENIED. 

The court also DENIES plaintiff’s request that all future matters be heard by this 

court rather than by Judge Westmore. Pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, this action remains 

referred to Judge Westmore for resolution of all discovery disputes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 76 Filed 03/27/19 Page 2 of 2