Opinion
18-cv-01376-CRB
02-21-2023
RAYMOND RICHARD WHITALL, Plaintiff, v. S.D. GUTIERREZ, et al., Dpfpndcintc
ORDER RE: DKTS. 147, 148
CHARLES R. BREYER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On February 16, the parties filed a discovery letter brief requesting the Court's assistance in resolving a discovery dispute. See Joint Letter Brief Regarding Discovery (dkt. 147). Plaintiff Raymond Richard Whitall (“Whitall”) argues that Defendants have engaged in “a pattern of concealment and flouting of discovery obligations,” and he thus seeks Rule 37 sanctions, including “evidentiary sanctions to deem the Second Amended Complaint's allegations related to the same issues implicated by the [discovery at issue] as established facts to be admitted at trial,” “an order precluding defendants from introducing at trial any information . . . that was not produced by the discovery cut-off date,” or, in the alternative, “leave to conduct further discovery.” Id. at 2-3. Defendants argue, both in the letter brief and in a further administrative motion, that the discovery letter brief is in fact a dispositive motion beyond the bounds of the discovery referral to Judge Hixson, and move to refer the motion to this Court. See id. at 3; dkt. 148; see also dkt. 106 (referring the matter to a Magistrate Judge for discovery purposes).
Defendants' motion to refer is DENIED. To the extent a further referral order is required pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion (dkt. 147) is referred to Magistrate Judge Hixson. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.P. 72. To the extent that the matter is dispositive, the Court will review a report and recommendation de novo upon a properly filed objection prusuant to Local Civil Rule 723. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); dkt. 148 at 2 n.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.