United States District Court, D. Hawaii
WILLIS C. MCALLISTER, Plaintiff,
ADECCO GROUP N.A.; TRANE SUPPLY CO.; CURTIS L. BRUNK; GARRETT MOCK, Defendants.
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO GRANT TRANE U.S. INC.'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
TERMINATING SANCTIONS; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL
OF THE ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S COUNTER MOTION, ECF NO.
Michael Seabright, Chief United States District Judge.
February 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield
issued a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”)
to grant Defendant Trane U.S. Inc.'s
(“Trane”) Motion for entry of terminating
sanctions, and an Order denying Plaintiff Willis C.
McAllister's (“Plaintiff”) Counter Motion for
terminating sanctions against Trane. ECF No. 330. On March
14, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Appeal objecting to all findings
and contending that the law was misapplied. ECF No. 331. The
court construes the Appeal as both an Objection to the
F&R and an Appeal of the Order denying Plaintiff's
to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court finds this matter suitable
for disposition without a hearing. For the reasons discussed
below, the court ADOPTS the F&R, DISMISSES
Plaintiff's claims against Trane, and DENIES
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Objections to F&R
party objects to a magistrate judge's findings or
recommendations, the district court must review de novo those
portions to which the objections are made and “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Appeal of Order
party may appeal to the district court any pretrial
nondispositive matter determined by a magistrate judge. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); LR 74.1. Such an
order may be reversed by the district court judge only when
it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); LR 74.1. The threshold of the
“clearly erroneous” test is high and
significantly deferential. “A finding is ‘clearly
erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it,
the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Matthews v. Chevron Corp.,
362 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004); Hasegawa v.
Hawaii, 2011 WL 6258831, at *1 (D. Haw. Dec. 14, 2011).
Factual and Procedural Background
initiated this action on August 9, 2016. ECF No. 1. The
F&R includes a recitation of the relevant events leading
up to the recommendation to impose terminating sanctions that
this court need not repeat in detail here. See
F&R at 2-8. Rather, the court summarizes those events.
sent Plaintiff its initial request for production of
documents on March 22, 2017. ECF No. 142. After Trane deemed
Plaintiff's initial response to be inadequate, Magistrate
Judge Mansfield held a discovery hearing, during which
“Plaintiff represented . . . that he had approximately
300 documents in his possession in a box, at his residence,
that were responsive to Trane's Documents Request.”
F&R at 3. Magistrate Judge Mansfield ordered Plaintiff to
produce those documents by June 23, 2017. Id.; ECF
No. 214. Additionally,
Trane agreed to pay for copying charges based on
Plaintiff's representation that his production consisted
of approximately 300 documents. The Court also informed
Plaintiff that any objections to Trane's Documents
Request were waived. Thus, the Court informed the parties
this it anticipated that Plaintiff would produce all
documents responsive to Trane's Documents Request, ...