Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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. 133 Before the court is plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell’s motion for review or reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 72-2 from a non-dispositive discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore on August 19, 2019.

A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order is conducted under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is “entitled to great deference.” Doubt v. NCR Corp., No. 09–cv–5917–SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A district court should not overturn a magistrate judge’s order simply because it “might have weighed differently the various interests and equities,” but rather the district court “must ascertain whether the order was contrary to law.” See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 23 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).

The court finds nothing in Judge Westmore’s orders that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Instead, Judge Westmore’s order appears correct. An independent medical examination may be appropriate when a party has put its mental health at issue.

Further, limiting access to such examination for purpose of preserving its accuracy is also legitimate, particularly where, as here, such examination may be recorded and thereby subsequently reviewed by plaintiff’s preferred doctor. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: September 23, 2019 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge