Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-01709-APG-NJK
04-14-2014
Esperanza Zamora, individually; Plaintiff, v. Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreen's; and DOES 1 through 100; and ROE CORPORATIONS 101 through 200, Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTIONS TO ORDER DENYING
ADVERSE INFERENCE DUE TO
SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
(Dkt. No. 42)
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Objections [Dkt. No. 42] to Magistrate Judge Koppe's Order [Dkt. No. 34] regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. No. 24].
A magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive matter will be modified or set aside only if "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). In reviewing for clear error, a district judge may not simply substitute his or her judgment for that of the magistrate judge. See Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241. A magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous only when the district court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Burdick v. Comm'r Internal Rev. Serv., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992); see United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that a magistrate judge's decisions about non-dispositive matters are entitled to great deference).
Upon careful review of the record in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-1, the Court determines that Judge Koppe's ruling [Dkt. No. 34] is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Koppe's Order [Dkt. No. 34] is AFFIRMED, Plaintiff's Objections are overruled, and Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. No. 24] is DENIED.
__________
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE