*1 Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's order denying plaintiff's motion for spoliation sanctions (Doc. No. 69), along with a motion for leave to take discovery regarding the issue of spoliation sanctions (Doc. No. 70.)[1]

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge's order, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303. Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a magistrate judge's ruling “ ‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id.

The court has reviewed the magistrate judge's order (Doc. No. 68), and it was not contrary to law or clearly erroneous. Additionally, plaintiff provided no reason as to why he could not have timely sought discovery regarding why the video was not preserved, and the court sees no reason to reopen discovery regarding this issue so late in the case.

Accordingly, plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's order, (Doc. No. 69), are overruled, and plaintiff's motion for leave to submit late discovery, (Doc No. 70), is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.