Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB

Plaintiff,

ORDER SUSTAINING

v. DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION [ECF 132] AND AWARDING CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.

DEFENDANTS REASONABLE

Defendants. EXPENSES UNDER RULE 37

Pending before the Court in this civil rights action is Defendants’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order that denied Plaintiff’s discovery motion. (ECF 130). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 72, the Court must “modify or set aside . . . [a magistrate judge’s order] that . . . is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s discovery motion. (ECF 130). The Judge determined Defendants complied with the Rules and the record did not show they tampered with video evidence. Id. Defendants requested reasonable expenses under Rule 37. (ECFs 67 and 130).…