United States District Court, D. Nevada
SANDRA K. KRAUSE, Plaintiff,
NEVADA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the matter of Krause v. Nevada Mutual Insurance Company, et al., case no. 2:12-cv-342-JCM-CWH. This order addresses the following:
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider Magistrate Judge Hoffman's order. (Doc. # 160).
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the magistrate judge's order. (Doc. # 162).
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the magistrate judge's order. (Doc. # 176).
Plaintiff's motion to extend time. (Doc. # 186).
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file. (Doc. # 188).
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the magistrate judge's order. (Doc. # 189).
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the magistrate judge's order. (Doc. # 191).
Plaintiff Sandra Krause was formerly employed by defendant Trean Corp. ("Trean"). According to the complaint, defendant Nevada Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. ("NMIC") provides professional liability insurance for medical providers in Nevada, and has a management agreement with Trean in which Trean provides various services to NMIC.
Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to inappropriate sexual comments and behavior over the course of her employment with defendant(s) and was retaliated against.
The remaining claims seek relief for (1) gender discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; (2) gender discrimination in violation of NRS 613.310 et seq.; and (3) retaliation. Only defendants NMIC and Trean remain.
The instant motions take issue with discovery-related orders that were issued by the magistrate judge.
II. Legal Standards
A. Motion to reconsider
Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court review under a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); LR 3-1(a) ("A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law."). "This subsection would also enable the court to delegate some of the more administrative functions to a magistrate, such as... assistance in the preparation of plans to achieve prompt disposition of cases in the court." Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869 (1989).
"A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). "An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure." Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc. v. Kemet Blue Powder Corp., No. 3:11-CV-00793-RCJ-VPC, 2012 WL 3884939, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 6, 2012).
A. Objection to order on motion to seal
Plaintiff objects (doc. # 160) to the magistrate judge's order (doc. # 152) granting defendants' second motion to seal (doc. # 99). ...