Tucker

MEMORANDUM *

C. DeLores Tucker and William Tucker, her husband, appeal from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants-Appellees on the Tuckers’ claims for malicious prosecution and loss of consortium, and from the magistrate judge’s grant of a protective order to them on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse the decision of the district court.

By failing to object in the district court to the magistrate judge’s discovery ruling, the Tuckers forfeited any appellate review of- that ruling. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 967 (9th Cir.2001).

In granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants-Appellees, the district court found that the Tuckers did not meet their burden under Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), of demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact on the requisite element of damages. Insufficient evidence of damages was the only basis for *612 summary judgment; 1 Mr. Tucker’s loss of consortium claim was dependent upon the survival of his wife’s claim for…