With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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.

A: holding trial courts general charge concerning requests for admissions was a correct statement of law
B: holding that requests for admissions are subject to discovery cutoff dates
C: holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions
D: holding that a request for admission is a tool of discovery subject to discovery cutoff dates
B.