Perez v. Unum Life Insurance Company Of America

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION ROBERT PEREZ, Case No. 5:21-cv-03207-EJD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE 10 v. NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 12 Re: Dkt. No. 31 Defendant.

Plaintiff Robert Perez moves the Court for relief from the non-dispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen (Dkt. No. 28), as to disputed issues numbers 1 and 2. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.

Generally, a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion may be set aside or modified by the district court only if found to be “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Bhan v. NME Hosp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). The magistrate’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The clear error standard allows the court to overturn a magistrate’s factual determinations only if the court reaches a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. The magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo to determine whether they are contrary to law. Id. Plaintiff seeks a determination that Judge van Keulen erred in deciding that there were insufficient grounds to warrant further discovery as to the completeness of the administrative Case No.: 5:21-cv-03207-EJD record. After reviewing Judge van Keulen’s order and the briefing, the Court cannot determine || that the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The record supports Judge van Keulen’s determination that Defendant did not remove documents from the administrative record. First, || Defendant’s confirmation that it produced its complete claim file is sufficient. See Kim v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2015 WL 7074278, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2015) (denying request for additional || discovery on alleged incompleteness grounds where defense counsel “‘confirmed that all [relevant] documents, records, or other information” were already produced). Second, Plaintiffs attempts to cast suspicion on the completeness of the record are insufficient. There is nothing about the || identified 20-day period that raises questions about the completeness of the record. See Dkt. No. || 35 at 8-9. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED. e 12 Dated: March 1, 2022

EDWARD J. DAVILA 15 United States District Judge it 18 Case No.: 5:21-cv-03207-EJD || ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE