Purnell
Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GEORGETTE G. PURNELL, Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH Plaintiff,
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE
RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC., PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 133
13 Before the court is plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell’s motion for review or 14 reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 72-2 from a non-dispositive discovery order issued 15 by Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore on August 19, 2019. 16 A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order is conducted under a 17 “clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate 18 judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is “entitled to great deference.” Doubt v. NCR 19 Corp., No. 09–cv–5917–SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A 20 district court should not overturn a magistrate judge’s order simply because it “might have 21 weighed differently the various interests and equities,” but rather the district court “must 22…