Boston Scientific Corp. et al v. Nevro Corp.

Filing 623

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING 569 Objections, filed by Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp., Boston Scientific Corp. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 4/21/2021. (nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. and
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
NEUROMODULATION CORP.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NEVRO CORP.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 16-1163-CFC

)

Defendant.

)
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Objections (D.1. 569) to the
Magistrate Judge's February 24, 2021 Order (D.1. 545). Plaintiffs object
specifically to the Magistrate Judge's decision to limit the trade secret discovery
sought by Plaintiffs to the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets by James
Thacker.
"Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b){l){A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(a), non-dispositive pre-trial rulings made by magistrate judges on referred
matters should only be set aside if clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Masimo
Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, 2010 WI 2836379, at *1
(D. Del. July 15, 2010). "A finding is clearly erroneous if the determination "(1) is
completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support displaying some hue of

credibility, or (2) bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data ..

" Id. (quoting Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 92 (3d Cir.1992)).
Applying this standard to the Magistrate Judge's Order, the Court finds no
error in his decision. Decisions regarding the scope of discovery permitted under
Rule 26(b)(l) are discretionary. Wisniewski v. Johns- Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81 ,
90 (3d Cir.1987). It is apparent from the transcript of the hearing held by the
Magistrate Judge to address Plaintiffs' discovery requests and the content of the
February 24, 2021 Order that the Magistrate Judge thoughtfully considered the
arguments raised by Plaintiffs in supp01t of their discovery requests. The Court
finds that the Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the
discovery Plaintiffs seek by way of their Objections is not sufficiently related to
the trade secret misappropriation claim they have alleged in Count IX.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Objections
(D.I. 569) are OVERRULED.

'f-U -~
Date

2