HURT et al v. VANTLIN et al

Filing 210

ORDER - Plaintiffs' 206 Objection is OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court REMANDS this matter to the magistrate judge for further findings and to elaborate the basis for his decision, such that this Court can apply the requisite standard of review should Plaintiffs renew their objection. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/25/2016. (GSO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM HURT,
DEADRA HURT,
ANDREA HURT,
DEBBIE HURT,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JEFF VANTLIN,
JACK SPENCER,
WILLIAM ARBAUGH,
JASON PAGETT,
LARRY NELSON,
RICHARD BLANTON,
DAN DEYOUNG,
CITY OF EVANSVILLE,
MATTHEW WISE,
ZACHARY JONES,
AMY BURROWS-BECKHAM,
Defendants.

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

No. 3:14-cv-00092-JMS-MPB

ORDER
On April 19, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Certain “Post-Incident” Discovery from Defendant City of Evansville (the “City”) without further
explanation. [Filing No. 193 (“The Court, having considered the same and all other relevant
factors, hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.”).] Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’
Objection to that decision, [Filing No. 206], which all of the Defendants that are related to the City
of Evansville (the “Evansville Defendants”) oppose, [Filing No. 207].
This Court can only sustain an objection to a nondispositive order by a magistrate judge
when the order is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). “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 v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
“An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules
of procedure.” Pain Center of SE Ind., LLC v. Origin Healthcare Solutions, LLC, 2014 WL
6674757, *2 (S.D. Ind. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Court is unable to review whether the magistrate judge’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Compel was clearly erroneous or contrary to law because the magistrate judge’s order does not
provide any analysis or reasoning for the decision. [Filing No. 193.] Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a) calls for a written opinion “when appropriate” and the Court finds that one would
be appropriate here. This is particularly so, as the parties each put their own spin on the nature of
a telephonic conference that preceded Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. [Filing No. 207 at 3
(Evansville Defendants’ brief, noting that “[t]he Magistrate was actively engaged on the
conference, asked questions, received argument, and advised the parties of that he would be
inclined to deny any motion to compel as to the alleged, post-incident discovery”); Filing No. 209
at 3 (Plaintiff’s brief pointing out that if the magistrate judge had fully explained his thoughts on
the issue “certainly the City would have described those thoughts somewhere in its response to
Plaintiffs’ Objection”).]
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Objection is OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Filing
No. 206.] The Court REMANDS this matter to the magistrate judge for further findings and to
elaborate the basis for his decision, such that this Court can apply the requisite standard of review
should Plaintiffs renew their objection. See, e.g., Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC v. Forest
River, Inc., 2011 WL 4496507, *3 (N.D. Ind. 2011) (remanding a discovery dispute back to the
magistrate judge “for elaboration on the reasons for his ruling”).
2

_______________________________

Date: May 25, 2016

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Electronic Distribution to Counsel of Record

3