Purnell

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 GEORGETTE G. PURNELL, Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE

10 RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC., PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 136 12

13 14 Before the court is plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell’s motion for review under Civil 15 Local Rule 72-2 from a non-dispositive discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge 16 Kandis Westmore on August 27, 2019. 17 A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order is conducted under a 18 “clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate 19 judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is “entitled to great deference.” Doubt v. NCR 20 Corp., No. 09–cv–5917–SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A 21 district court should not overturn a magistrate judge’s order simply because it “might have 22 weighed differently the various interests and equities,” but rather the district court…