to respond to a request for admission would have ended beyond the April 30, 2001 date for completing the first phase of discovery. (Def.’s Opp’n to Pi’s Mot. to Recons, the Protective Order at 1-2.) The plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the denial of his motions to compel and the granting of the defendant’s motion for a protective order. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and Local Civil Rule 72.2(b), a party may seek reconsideration of a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive, discovery dispute. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(a); LCvR 72.2. A magistrate judge’s ruling is entitled to deference and must be modified or set aside only if it is found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Neuder v. Battelle Pac. Northwest Nat’l Lab., 194 F t *1 (<HOLDING>); Toone v. Federal Express Corp., No. Civ. A.
holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions holding trial courts general charge concerning requests for admissions was a correct statement of law holding that a request for admission is a tool of discovery subject to discovery cutoff dates holding that rule 36 requests for admissions are not included within the parameters of a general cutoff for discovery in a scheduling order holding that requests for admissions are subject to discovery cutoff dates