In Re: MiMedx Group Inc. Securities Litigation
MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting 1 MOTION to Compel. The Objections (D.I. 14 ) are OVERRULED (see Memorandum Order for further details) (***Civil Case Terminated). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 8/18/2015. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE: MIMEDX GROUP
MIMEDX GROUP INC.,
Misc. Action No. 15-84-RGA
The Magistrate Judge has filed a Memorandum Order. (D.I. 13). Organogenesis objects.
(D.I. 14). MiMedx responds. (D.I. 16). The matter is now before this Court.
The Magistrate Judge had authority to make the decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l)(A), which provides that "a [district] judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear
and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court [other than certain specified matters
including injunctive relief, judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, class action status,,
Rule 12(b)(6) motions, an involuntary dismissal]." Such a designation was made. (D.I. 8). The
decision is subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A), which further provides that
the district judge "may reconsider any pretrial matter ... where it has been shown that the
magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law."
Thus, :findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Review of the factual determinations
is limited to the record that was before the magistrate judge. Determinations of applicable legal
standards are reviewed for error. There are also decisions that involve the exercise of discretioh,
and discretionary decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
In this case, the Magistrate Judge granted MiMedx's motion to compel. To do so was not
an abuse of discretion. The discovery sought is relevant information. The Magistrate Judge
applied the correct standard. The discovery (particularly as limited below) is limited in time and
scope. There is little burden on Organogenesis to produce the requesteci materials. In order to
make sure that the discovery does seek only relevant information, I will modify the scope of the
requested discovery. I do think there is some merit in one point that Organogenesis makes. (See
D.I. 14, p.10 n.7). I further note that MiMedx does not respond to the point.
this~ day of August 2015, the Objections (D.I. 14) are OVERRULED.
motion to compel (D.I. 1) is GRANTED as to Requests 11, 12, 14, and 15, but not as to
Requests 13 and 16. I understand the "Injectable Products" to refer only to the "AmnioFix
Injectable" and "EpiFix Injectable" products. Further, Requests 11, 12, 14, and 15 are
specifically limited to the time period from December 4, 2012, to August 4, 2013. No costs or
fees are granted to MiMedx.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?