Opinion ID: 4525517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discovery Sanctions and Costs

Text: Finally, Tastan asks us to reverse the district court’s award of discovery sanctions and discovery-related costs to LANS. Both awards are outside the scope of our review. LANS advises in its response brief that Tastan’s counsel has already paid the full amount of the discovery sanctions because the magistrate judge held that Tastan and her counsel were jointly and severally liable for them. In any event, we cannot review the sanctions award because Tastan did not object to the underlying magistrate judge’s order dated January 31, 2019. “This court has adopted a firm waiver rule under which a party who fails to make a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005). When a party had counsel before the district court, like Tastan did,3 the firm waiver rule applies unless “the interests of justice require review.” See id. (internal quotation marks omitted). This exception is “a narrow one.” Key Energy Res., Inc. v. Merrill (In re Key Energy Res., Inc.), 230 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2000); see, e.g., Vega v. Suthers, 195 F.3d 573, 580 (10th Cir. 1999) (noting that “we have excused the failure to file timely objections only in the rare circumstance in which a represented party did not receive a copy of the 3 “[W]e expect counsel to know the pleading rules of the road without being given personal notice of them by the district court.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007). The rule governing magistrate judges’ recommendations on nondispositive matters provides: “A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (emphasis added). 10 magistrate’s R&R”). Tastan states that she cannot afford to pay the award and to support her family. Though we sympathize with her situation, this statement alone does not satisfy the interests-of-justice exception. The magistrate judge held a hearing regarding sanctions and issued a detailed order carefully explaining why the sanctions award was appropriate. Likewise, we cannot review the costs award because Tastan did not object to the district court clerk’s August 7, 2019 order setting costs. That order instructed the parties to file any motion for review within seven days, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). “[A] party’s failure to file a motion for review of costs with the district court within the [applicable] period constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the award.” Bloomer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 337 F.3d 1220, 1221 (10th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (construing a previous version of Rule 54(d)(1) with a five-day review period).