Berlinger et al v. Wells Fargo, N.A. as Successor to Wachovia Bank, N.A.

Filing 521

OPINION AND ORDER overruling 340 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/22/2015. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
STACEY SUE BERLINGER, as
Beneficiaries to the Rosa B.
Schweiker Trust and all of
its
related
trusts
aka
Stacey Berlinger O’Connor,
BRIAN BRUCE BERLINGER, and
HEATHER ANNE BERLINGER, as
Beneficiaries to the Rosa B.
Schweiker Trust and all of
its related trusts,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:11-cv-459-FtM-29CM

WELLS
FARGO,
N.A.
AS
SUCCESSOR TO WACHOVIA BANK,
N.A., as Corporate Trustee
to the Rosa B. Schweiker
Trust,
and
all
of
its
related trusts,
Defendant/Third
Party Plaintiff
BRUCE D. BERLINGER and SUE
CASSELBERRY,
Third Party Defendants.
____________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of plaintiffs’
Amended Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. #340) filed
on December 10, 2014.

In their objections, plaintiffs allege that

the Magistrate Judge erroneously denied the following motions: (1)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions to

Defendant Admitted (Doc. #295); (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Response to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Request for Production (Doc. #297);
and (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take Continued Deposition
of William Ries (Doc. #286).
A

magistrate

pretrial

matters

636(b)(1)(A);

judge

is

regarding

Local

Rule

Middle District of Florida.

authorized
discovery

6.01,

to

hear

and

determine

disputes.

United

28

U.S.C.

States

District

§

Court,

A district judge may reconsider such

matters only upon a showing that the magistrate judge’s order was
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);

Having reviewed the Order (Doc. #334) and

plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. #340), the Court finds that the
challenged order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs’ motions (Docs. #295,
297) as untimely because they were filed after the October 31,
2014, discovery deadline.

The previously filed case management

and scheduling order states that the Court may deny discovery
motions filed after the discovery deadline as untimely.
#141.)

Accordingly,

plaintiffs’

first

two

objections

(Doc.
are

overruled.
Plaintiffs also object to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take Continued Deposition of
William Ries (Doc. #286) asserting it contradicts the Court’s prior
orders.

Plaintiffs assert that the Magistrate Judge erred when
2

she found that opposing counsel did not impede, frustrate, or
delay, the fair examination of Mr. Ries.

(Doc. #334, pp.3-4.)

The Court finds no error and overrules plaintiffs’ objection.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiffs' Amended Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order
(Doc. #340) are OVERRULLED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
December, 2015.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

3

22nd

day of