Florer v. Ford Motor Service Company Inc., et al., No. 1:2022cv00449 - Document 179 (D. Idaho 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection (Dkt. 178 ) to the United States Magistrate Judge's Order is OVERRULED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear in person for his December 14, 2023 deposition.Signed by Judge B Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ac)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Florer v. Ford Motor Service Company Inc., et al. Doc. 179 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO D. SCOTT FLORER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00449-BLW-DKG Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC.; LITHIA FORD OF BOISE, INC.; RHETT SHEEDER; RICH STUART; ANGELO SANCHEZ; TRAVIS STEAR; and LISA CRABTREE, Defendants. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff D. Scott Florer’s objections to a discovery order issued by a United States Magistrate Judge Debora K. Grasham. See Dkt. 178. For the reasons explained below, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objection. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge may hear and determine any pretrial matter before the court, with certain exceptions not relevant here. This Court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on such a matter if that ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). DISCUSSION The facts relevant to this motion are set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Order, see Dkt. 177, and will not be repeated here. Briefly, however, Plaintiff D. Scott Florer’s MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com deposition is scheduled for tomorrow, December 14, 2023. At the eleventh hour, Mr. Florer filed a motion to have the deposition conducted remotely, on ground that he had just moved to Utah. See Dkt. 173, 174. The Magistrate Judge acted well within the law in determining that the deposition should be conducted in person, in the District of Idaho. And although plaintiff complains that he had not yet filed a reply in support of his motion, the Magistrate Judge reasonably determined to go ahead and issue a ruling, and to expedite the time for filing objections, given that the deposition was scheduled to take place within the next 24 hours. This Court is also issuing a quick ruling in an effort to keep this litigation on track. In sum, none of Mr. Florer’s objections show that the Magistrate Judge issued an order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court will overrule the objections. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection (Dkt. 178) to the United States Magistrate Judge’s Order is OVERRULED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear in person for his December 14, 2023 deposition. DATED: December 13, 2023 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
