Opinion
20-cv-07683-HSG
05-03-2024
PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, Plaintiff, v. COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' REPLY RE: DKT. NOS. 280, 294
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are two motions. The first is Defendants' motion for relief from Magistrate Judge Westmore's March 15, 2024 Order (Dkt. No. 274), which ruled on the discovery disputes presented in Dkt. No. 269. See Dkt. No. 280. In evaluating the objection, the Court assesses whether Judge Westmore's order made any clearly erroneous factual determinations or reached any legal conclusions that are contrary to law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The Court finds that it was not clear error or contrary to law for Judge Westmore to deny as untimely Defendants' request for an order requiring Plaintiff to produce an unredacted copy of PSG-00227768. Dkt. No. 274. The Court accordingly DENIES Defendants' motion for relief, Dkt. No. 280.
In the second motion, Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants' reply in support of the motion for relief from Judge Westmore's March 15 order. See Dkt. No. 294. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72, Plaintiff argues that because this Court had not ruled on Defendants' motion or set a briefing schedule within 14 days, Defendants' motion was “deemed denied,” such that their reply in support of the motion was unauthorized and must be stricken. See id. at 3. Though the face of the local rules does not contemplate a reply being filed in this circumstance, the Court's ECF system generated a briefing schedule, which included a reply date. See Dkt. No. 280. It is unclear to the Court why this occurred, and in the future all counsel are directed to ensure that they appropriately characterize motions in ECF to avoid this confusion. Future filings that do not comply with Local Rule 72 will be stricken. Here, given the docketing ambiguity and the fact that the reply does not affect the result on the motion in any event, the Court DENIES the motion to strike, Dkt. No. 294.
IT IS SO ORDERED.