Precision Dose, Inc. v. United States of America (Internal Revenue Service)

Filing 132

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 2/28/2014: For the reasons stated below, defendants objection 126 to Magistrate Judge Mahoneys order 120 is denied. Mailed notice(ngm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION
Precision Dose, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
United States of America,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12 C 50180

Judge Philip G. Reinhard

ORDER
For the reasons stated below, defendant’s objection [126] to Magistrate Judge Mahoney’s
order [120] is denied.
STATEMENT - OPINION
Defendant objects [126] to Magistrate Judge Mahoney’s order [120] granting plaintiff’s
motion [114] to quash defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition.
“Section 636 of the Federal Magistrates Act and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)
govern district court review of nondispositive magistrate judge decisions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) (providing that a 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”); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a) (“The district judge ... must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any
part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”) In short, the district judge
reviews magistrate-judge discovery decisions for clear error. See Weeks v. Samsung Heavy
Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).” Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 13-2435, 2014 WL
408723, * 2 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014). “The clear error standard means that the district court can
overturn the magistrate judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks, 126 F.3d at 943.
Defendant argues Magistrate Judge Mahoney’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to
law because the magistrate judge misunderstood defendant’s argument and the particular issues
before the court. Defendant noticed a 30(b)(6) deposition of plaintiff with one of the designated
topics for the deposition being “all aspects of [plaintiff’s] business activities.” Plaintiff moved to
quash on the basis this designated topic was overly-broad. Defendant acknowledges that in most
cases such a designation would be overly-broad but that it is not so in this case because plaintiff’s
own Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(I) disclosures – for each of the potential witnesses it may use to support its
claims and the subjects of potentially discoverable information those individuals may have –

1

used the same language. (“All aspects of [plaintiff’s] business activities, with primary emphasis
on, but not limited to [certain specified matters].”)
Rule 30(b)(6) requires the notice of deposition to “describe with reasonable particularity
the matters for the examination.” The notice of deposition at issue listed the designated topics of
the deposition to be: 1) all aspects of [plaintiff’s] business activities; 2) all aspects of [plaintiff’s
responses to [defendant’s] discovery requests in this action and the factual bases underlying those
responses; 3) all aspects of [plaintiff’s] claims in this suit, and the factual bases underlying such
claims.” Magistrate Judge Mahoney reviewed the notice and observed that “[t]o avoid liability,
the noticed party must designate persons knowledgeable in the areas of inquiry listed in the
notice. When the responding party cannot identify the outer limits of the area of inquiry noticed,
compliant designation is not feasible.” He then stated: “based on the notice I have in front of me,
it’s impossible for the plaintiff to comply with the notice.”
Defendant does not cite any case law or other authority in support of its claim Magistrate
Judge Mahoney’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Defendant makes a reasonable
enough argument based on plaintiff’s Rule 26(a) disclosures that it had a reason for drafting what
it admits would normally be an overly-broad notice for this deposition. However, the magistrate
judge was free to disagree. This is the kind of ruling that occurs in the normal give and take of
the discovery process. Nothing in the record indicates the magistrate judge misunderstood
defendant’s argument. Magistrate Judge Mahoney is in a much better position to evaluate where
to give and where to take based on his ongoing familiarity with the parties and their conduct of
pretrial matters in this case. The question is not whether this court would have reached the same
or a different conclusion but whether the court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made.” Weeks, 126 F.3d at 943. The court does not have such a “definite and
firm conviction.”
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s objection [126] to Magistrate Judge Mahoney’s
order [120] is denied.
DATE: 2/28/2014

ENTER:

United States District Court Judge
Electronic Notices. (LC)

2