Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Krause v. Nevada Mutual Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 21, 2014

SANDRA K. KRAUSE, Plaintiff,
v.
NEVADA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

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).

I. Background

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.[1]

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).

III. Discussion

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). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.