Opinion
Civil No. 01-718-ST.
March 24, 2006
Beth Ann Creighton, Zan E. Tewksbury, Thomas M. Steenson, STEENSON SCHUMANN TEWKSBURY CREIGHTON ROSE, PC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Kenneth C. Bauman, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DISTRICT OF OREGON, Portland, OR, R. Joseph Sher, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Alexandria, VA, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Stewart filed a minute order (# 309) on January 25, 2006, denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to compel plaintiffs' response to interrogatories (# 272). The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter, the district court determines whether the Magistrate Judge's order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002).
Defendants have timely filed objections (# 322). I have considered the objections and find no error. Accordingly, I AFFIRM Magistrate Judge Stewart's order (# 309), filed on January 25, 2006, in its entirety.