SPIERER et al v. ROSSMAN et al

Filing 111

ENTRY on Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order - The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's May 19 and June 3, 2014 discovery orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, the Plaintiff's objections (Filing No. #107 ) are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/30/2014. (TRG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ROBERT EVAN SPIERER,
MARY CHARLENE SPIERER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COREY E ROSSMAN,
JASON ISAAC ROSENBAUM,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-00991-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Robert Evan Spierer and Mary Charlene
Spierer’s Rule 72(A) Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s June 3, 2014 Nondispositive Order.
(Filing No. 107). On June 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration (Filing No. 96), denying Plaintiffs’ request to lift the discovery stay imposed on
May 19, 2014 (Filing No. 92). Plaintiffs ask the Court to set aside both orders in their entirety.
For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiffs’ objections are OVERRULED.
I.

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case have been recounted in detail in the Court’s previous order on the Motion
to Dismiss (Filing No. 37) and need not be recounted here. On May 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge
Tim Baker granted Defendant Jason Rosenbaum’s Motion to Bifurcate and Limit Discovery to the
Issue of Proximate Cause, (Filing No. 60), pending a discovery hearing which was set for May 28,
2014. Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Reconsider. (Filing No. 96). Following the May 28, 2014
hearing, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider and denied Plaintiffs’ request

to lift the stay, finding that because the summary judgment motion had been fully briefed, there
was good cause to keep the stay of discovery in place pending the resolution of the “potentially
dispositive” motion for summary judgment. Filing No. 103, at ECF p. 6. The Magistrate Judge
also found that the Court had not improperly shifted the burden at summary judgment to the
Plaintiffs. Filing No. 103, at ECF p. 5.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A district judge may refer a non-dispositive matter to a magistrate judge to decide and hear.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A party may file objections to a magistrate judge’s written order, and the
“district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate judge is
given broad discretion in controlling discovery. Jones v. City of Elkhart, 737 F.3d 1107, 1116 (7th
Cir. 2013).
III.

DISCUSSION

The Plaintiffs argue that both the Magistrate Judge’s May 19 and June 3, 2014 orders are
clearly erroneous and contrary to law. First, Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in his
conclusions that they should have filed a Rule 56(d) motion to conduct discovery to respond to the
Defendants’ summary judgment motion; that the burden is on the non-moving party to set forth
fact showing that there is a genuine issue for trial; and that Defendants could discharge their burden
on summary judgment by asserting that there is an absence of evidence to support the Plaintiffs’
case. The Court, for reasons that are addressed in full in its ruling on the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, finds that these statements are not contrary to law, and therefore are not in
error.

2

The Plaintiffs’ second objection, that there has not been “adequate time” for discovery, is
simply a reiteration of their arguments in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment
and motion to supplement their response to the motion for summary judgment. This is not so much
of an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling as it is an argument that the ruling on summary
judgment is inappropriate, which is a matter before the District Judge, not the Magistrate Judge.
This issue is more fully addressed in the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment, and
the Court finds there is no error on this issue in the Magistrate Judge’s discovery order.
Finally, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have not satisfied the Rule 26(c) standard for
a stay of discovery. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge adequately explained his reasons
for granting Rosenbaum’s motion to bifurcate and limit discovery to the issue of proximate cause
in its May 19, 2014 order. (Filing No. 60; Filing No. 92). The Magistrate Judge found that
discovery should properly be limited to the issue of proximate cause, but because the summary
judgment motion on the issue of proximate cause had been fully briefed, a stay of all discovery
was warranted. Filing No. 92 at ECF p. 4. The Magistrate Judge further stated in his order on the
motion to reconsider that principles of fairness and judicial economy warranted resolution of the
motion for summary judgment before permitting “unduly burdensome and expensive discovery.”
Filing No. 103, at ECF p. 6. The Magistrate Judge also took into account that the Plaintiffs
represented at the May 28, 2014 discovery hearing that they did not need discovery in order to
respond to the motion for summary judgment. Filing No. 103, at ECF p. 6. The June 3, 2014
order was on the Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s prior discovery order, in
which he had already determined that a stay was warranted; there was no need for Defendants to
make an additional Rule 26(c) showing prior to the June 3, 2014, ruling. Plaintiffs have not shown

3

that there was a manifest error of law made by the Magistrate Judge, and the Court will defer to
his discretion on the discovery orders.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s May 19 and June 3, 2014
discovery orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s

objections (Filing No. 107) are OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/30/2014

Distribution:
Jason Ross Barclay
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

Stephanie Lynn Cassman
LEWIS WAGNER LLP
[e-mail]

Jeanine R. Kerridge
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

Theresa Renee Parish
LEWIS WAGNER LLP
[e-mail]

Larry A. Mackey
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

Robert M. Baker, IV
LEWIS WAGNER LLP
[e-mail]

James Gregory Garrison
GARRISON LAW FIRM
[e-mail]

Carl Arthur Salzmann
SALZMANN LAW
[e-mail]

Joshua N. Taylor
GARRISON LAW FIRM LLC
[e-mail]

Dane Andrew Mize
SKILES DETRUDE
[e-mail]

John Carl Trimble
LEWIS WAGNER LLP
[e-mail]

Richard Robert Skiles
SKILES DETRUDE
[e-mail]

4