The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Walking U Ranch, LLC

I. INTRODUCTION

Walking U Ranch LLC (“Walking U”), Kathleen P. March, and Patrick F. Bnght (collectively, “Ranch-March-Bright” or “defendants”) make this objection to the Hon. District Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P (“Rule”) 72(a), requesting the Court reverse the January 11, 2022 “discovery sanctions” Order of the Hon. Gail J. Standish, Magistrate Judge, presiding (the “Magistrate Judge”), dkt. 153 (the “Order”), as both clearly erroneous, and contrary to law. Dkt. 162. The Magistrate Judge’s order requires Ranch-March-Bright to pay discovery sanctions of $2,455 to Travelers’ attorney, Mark Peterson, Esq., to compensate Peterson for time he spent moving the Magistrate Judge to order March to submit to an additional 3 hour deposition. Order at 1. Under Rule 72(a), for nondispositive pretrial matters decided by a magistrate judge, “the district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

II. BACKGROUND

On September 1, 2021, the Magistrate Judge granted Travelers’ motion for leave to take an additional three-hour deposition of March. Dkts.…