(PC) Ortega v. United States of America ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALBERT ORTEGA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00999-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 13 v. ORDER AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT LATE DISCOVERY 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (Doc. Nos. 69 & 70) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for 18 spoliation sanctions (Doc. No. 69), along with a motion for leave to take discovery regarding the 19 issue of spoliation sanctions (Doc. No. 70.)1 20 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge's 21 order, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any 22 part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303. Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court 24 may overturn a magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and 25 firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, 26 Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 27 1 According to plaintiff, his motion for leave to take discovery “is being subsumed by his Objection….” 28 (Doc. No. 70 at 1.) 1 | 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may 2 | conduct independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id. 3 The court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. No. 68), and it was not contrary 4 | to law or clearly erroneous. Additionally, plaintiff provided no reason as to why he could not 5 | have timely sought discovery regarding why the video was not preserved, and the court sees no 6 | reason to reopen discovery regarding this issue so late in the case. 7 Accordingly, plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge’s order, (Doc. No. 69), are 8 | overruled, and plaintiff's motion for leave to submit late discovery, (Doc No. 70), is denied. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _ April 19, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28