Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. et al v. Continental Casualty Company et al, No. 3:2010cv01174 - Document 181 (D. Or. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Papaks recommendation, except as regards Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment 67 . Except as noted, I ADOPT the conclusions of the F&R 124 as my own opinion. Plaintiffs motion fo r partial summary judgment 67 is DENIED in entirety because resolution of the issues raised is premature. Plaintiffs motion for leave to supplement the evidentiary record 118 is DENIED. Defendants motion for partial summary judgment 70 is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion to compel 84 is GRANTED IN PART. Additionally, defendants motion to strike 134 plaintiffs response to the objections is DENIED. Signed on 9/5/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., No. 3:10-cv-01174-PK Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On March 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) [124] in the above-captioned case, recommending that plaintiff s motion for partial summary judgment [67] be granted in part and denied in part. Judge Papak also recommended that plaintiff s motion for leave to supplement the evidentiary record [118] be denied and defendants motion for partial summary judgment be denied [70]. Lastly, Judge Papak recommended that plaintiff s motion to compel [84] be granted in part. Defendants filed objections [131] and plaintiffs responded [133]. Defendants also filed a motion to strike [134] plaintiffs response to the objections. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 1 OPINION AND ORDER but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak s recommendation, except as regards Plaintiff s motion for partial summary judgment [67]. Except as noted, I ADOPT the conclusions of the F&R [124] as my own opinion. Plaintiff s motion for partial summary judgment [67] is DENIED in entirety because resolution of the issues raised is premature. Plaintiff s motion for leave to supplement the evidentiary record [118] is DENIED. Defendants motion for partial summary judgment [70] is DENIED. Plaintiff s motion to compel [84] is GRANTED IN PART. Additionally, defendants motion to strike [134] plaintiffs response to the objections is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5th day of September, 2012. /s/ Michael W. Mosman . MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court 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.