Rapid Funding Group, Inc. et al v. KeyBank National Association et al, No. 3:2007cv01348 - Document 170 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I find Judge Papak's order neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. I therefore decline to modify or set aside the Opinion and Order (#133). As such, the Motion to Strike 151 is DENIED AS MOOT, 135 . Signed on 5/25/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON RAPID FUNDING GROUP, INC., No. CV 07-1348-PK Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On February 24, 2009, Magistrate Judge Papak issued an Opinion and Order (#133) in the above-captioned case DENYING defendant's Motion to Compel (#96), and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART plaintiff's Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of KeyBank's Discovery Responses (#102). Defendant objected to the Opinion and Order (#135). Plaintiff filed a Response (#150) to the objection, and a Motion to Strike the French Declaration (#151). DISCUSSION Parties may timely file objections to a magistrate's order for non-dispositive, pretrial matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). On review of the magistrate's order, the district court must "modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(A). There is clear error when the court is "left with PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). This standard of review reflects the broad discretion accorded to magistrate judges on pretrial matters. See, e.g., Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that questions of law are reviewed de novo, while pretrial motions such as discovery matters are evaluated under the clearly erroneous standard of review) (citations omitted). Upon review, I find Judge Papak's order neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. I therefore decline to modify or set aside the Opinion and Order (#133). As such, the Motion to Strike (#151) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 25 day of May, 2009. /s/ Michael W Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
