Inglis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Filing
124
OPINION AND ORDER overruling 122 Emergency Objections. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/29/2016. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RICHARD
K.
INGLIS,
as
Special Trustee to the trust
under the will of Rosa B.
Schweiker, dated February 2,
1961,
the
Frederick
W.
Berlinger Revocable Deed of
Trust, dated 10/17/1991, as
amended and restated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:14-cv-677-FtM-29CM
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of plaintiff’s
Emergency Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. #122) filed
on September 26, 2016.
Plaintiff objects to certain portions of
the Magistrate Judge’s September 23, 2016, Order (Doc. #118) which
denied the following motions: (1) plaintiff’s Second Motion for an
Order Compelling Disclosure (Doc. #96); and (2) plaintiff’s Motion
for Extension of Time to Obtain Discovery from Defendant’s Expert
Witness (Doc. #110).
For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s
objections are overruled.
A
magistrate
pretrial
matters
636(b)(1)(A);
judge
is
regarding
Local
Rule
authorized
discovery
6.01,
United
to
hear
and
determine
disputes.
28
U.S.C.
States
District
§
Court,
Middle District of Florida.
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. #118) and
plaintiff’s objections (Doc. #122), the Court finds that the
challenged Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s Second Motion for an
Order Compelling Disclosure (Doc. #96) finding that plaintiff
failed to meet his burden to establish the relevancy of the
documents requested.
(Doc. #118, p. 6.)
Plaintiff asserts that
he met his burden and attempts to further establish relevancy by
making arguments which were not brought before the Magistrate
Judge.
Although plaintiff disagrees with the findings of the
Magistrate Judge, he fails to show such findings are clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s first
objection is overruled.
Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of
plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Obtain Discovery from
Defendant’s Expert Witness (Doc. #110) as moot.
Plaintiff asserts
the Magistrate Judge erred when she found the need for an extension
of time was eliminated because defendant had already responded to
plaintiff’s discovery request.
(Doc. #118, p. 8.)
Plaintiff
asserts his motion was not rendered moot, even though such items
were previously produced, because defendant’s expert witness does
- 2 -
not sufficiently identify the documents.
(Doc. #122, p. 3.)
Plaintiff’s argument regarding his inability to identify what
documents the defendant’s expert is referring to does not negate
the fact that such documents were previously produced in discovery.
Accordingly, the Court finds no clear error in the Magistrate
Judge’s determination and overrules plaintiff’s objection.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiffs’ Emergency Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order
(Doc. #122) are OVERRULLED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this
of September, 2016.
SA: ftmp-2
Copies: All Parties of Record
- 3 -
29th
day
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?