CINDY K. JORGENSON, District Judge.
On August 8, 2013, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued an Order addressing a discovery dispute between the parties. (Doc. 250). On August 22, 2013, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), Plaintiff filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Ferraro's Order. (Doc. 258). On August 26, 2013, the Court directed Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Objections. (Doc. 259). On September 6, 2013, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff's Objections. (Doc. 269).
After the filing of objections, the district court must modify or set aside any part of a non-dispositive Magistrate Judge's Order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
Magistrate Judge Ferraro's August 8, 2013 Order addressed whether Plaintiff was entitled to a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant and whether Defendant waived its attorney-client privilege by failing to produce privilege logs, utilizing litigation counsel to conduct claims handling, and asserting its subjective evaluation of the law in defending against the bad faith claim.
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
Magistrate Judge Ferraro found that as a result of Defendant's late disclosure of documents, a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendant was appropriate. However, Magistrate Judge Ferraro limited the scope of the deposition to those issues that are reasonably based on information learned from the new disclosures or actions that have occurred since the initial Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
After reviewing Plaintiff's June 28, 2013 deposition notice, Magistrate Judge Ferraro found that certain topics were outside the scope of the second deposition. See (Doc. 214). Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Ferraro's determination that Plaintiff's request for the identification of all Lanham Act claims that Defendant provided a defense was outside the scope of the second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition because Plaintiff is already in possession of this information.
However, Plaintiff did not raise any argument before Magistrate Judge Ferraro in support of its interest in requesting the identification of Lanham Act cases, despite prior notice of Defendant's objection to that line of inquiry. As such, this Court need not consider Plaintiff's argument related to Lanham Act claims raised for the first time in its Objection. See Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 863 F.2d 633, 638-639 (9th Cir. 1988).
However, even assuming the Court must consider Plaintiff's argument, the Court finds that the issue relating to Lanham Act claim files was addressed in the Court's May 22, 2013 Order and Defendant has already complied with that Order. See (Doc. 191). Courts have wide discretion in controlling discovery. Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 503 (D. Nev. 2013). The issue relating to Lanham Act cases defended by the Defendant was addressed in the Court's May 22, 2013 Order and the relevant cases and case summaries have been provided to Plaintiff. As such, Magistrate Judge Ferraro's Order limiting Plaintiff's second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Defendant's Attorney Client Privilege
Plaintiff argues in his Objection that Defendant had waived its attorney client privilege by utilizing outside counsel as a claims examiner, by asserting its subjective evaluation of the law in ...