Brown et al v. Tax Ease Lien Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 121

MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 1/11/2017, re Plaintiff's 104 Objection to the 11 Order of Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin that was entered on 10/11/2016. cc: Counsel (RLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
JAMES BROWN, et al.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00208-CRS-DW

v.
TAX EASE LIEN SERVICING, LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

Memorandum Opinion
I.

Introduction
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ objection to the order of Magistrate Judge

Dave Whalin that was entered on October 11, 2016 (the “October 11, 2016 order”), ECF No.
104, which granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 98. Defendants Tax
Ease Lien Servicing, LLC, Tax Ease Lien Investments 1, LLC, Lien Data Services, LLC, and
Blue Grass Abstract, LLC (“the Tax Ease Defendants”) responded, ECF No. 111. Plaintiffs did
not reply. For the reasons stated below, the Court will overrule Plaintiffs’ objection to the
October 11, 2016 order.
II.

Background
As this Court previously noted, the factual and procedural background of this case is

lengthy and complex. Mem. Op. 3, ECF No. 24. And again, instead of reciting that history, the
Court incorporates Magistrate Judge Whalin’s findings of fact into this memorandum. Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, ECF No. 21.

1

Plaintiffs moved to “modify” the October 11, 2016 order. Obj. 1, ECF No. 104. The
magistrate judge construed Plaintiffs’ motion to “modify” as an objection to the October 11,
2016 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71(a). Order 12/21/16 at 10, ECF No. 117.1
III.

Standard
The Court must consider a timely objection to a magistrate judge’s order on a

nondispositive matter 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The magistrate judge’s factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous
standard. Heights Cvmt. Congress v. Hilltop Realty, Inc., 774 F.2d 135, 140 (6th Cir. 1985). A
factual finding is clearly erroneous when “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. Under the clearly
erroneous standard, the Court does not ask whether the magistrate judge reached “the best or
only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence.” Knox v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No.
13-CV-00424-CRS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170597, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 9, 2014) (citing TriStar Airlines, Inc. v. Willis Careen Corp. of L.A., 75 F. Supp. 2d 835, 839 (W.D. Tenn. 1999)).
“Rather, the clearly erroneous standard only requires the reviewing court to determine if there is
any evidence to support the magistrate judge’s finding and that the finding was reasonable.” Id.
In comparison, the magistrate judge’s legal conclusions are subject to the plenary
“contrary to law” standard. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). A legal
conclusion is contrary to law when it contradicts or ignores applicable legal principles found in
the Constitution, statutes, and case precedent. Id. The Court must thus exercise “independent
judgment” in reviewing the magistrate judge’s legal conclusions. Id.
1

This Court will thus refer to Plaintiffs’ motion to “modify” the October 11, 2016 order as an
objection to the order.
2

IV.

Discussion
The parties have been apparently able to agree on all but one of Plaintiffs’ objections to

the October 11, 2016 order. Order 12/21/16 at 2, ECF No. 117. The parties are unable to agree
on Issue 7. Id. Issue 7 involves a discovery request that seeks from Defendants Tax Ease Lien
Servicing, LLC and Tax Ease Lien Investments 1, LLC “all documents related to
communications with any attorney or law firm regarding [Blue Grass Abstract, LLC] or [Lien
Data Services, LLC].” Order 10/11/16 at 7, ECF No. 100. As discussed in the October 11, 2016
order, the magistrate judge determined that the request was overly broad and “swe[pt] in an
unlimited range of documents that in any fashion refer to or involve an attorney or a law firm,
which also happen to make even passing reference to [Blue Grass Abstract, LLC] or [Lien Data
Services, LLC].” Id. at 31. The magistrate judge accordingly limited the scope of the Issue 7
discovery request to include “those communications of [Tax Ease Lien Servicing, LLC] or [Tax
Ease Lien Investments 1, LLC] with any attorney or law firm that are made after March 4, 2010
and to be limited to include attorney invoices involving delinquent Kentucky property taxes and
[Blue Grass Abstract, LLC] or [Lien Data Services, LLC].” Id. at 31–32.
Plaintiffs do not object to the portion of the October 11, 2016 order related to Issue 7 that
restricts the geographic scope of the discovery request to Kentucky. Obj. 4, ECF No. 104. They
argue, however, that the additional modifications to the discovery request will “limit some highly
relevant communications between [Tax Ease Lien Servicing, LLC] and [Tax Ease Lien
Investments 1, LLC] on the one hand and Billy Sherrow (and possibly other attorneys) on the
other.” Id. They request that the Court change the discovery request as it is currently worded in
the October 11, 2016 order to state, “Produce all invoices, correspondence, and contracts with
any attorney or law firm regarding [Blue Grass Abstract, LLC] or [Lien Data Services, LLC] and

3

involving delinquent Kentucky property taxes either in effect on or made after January 1, 2007.”
Id.
The Tax Ease Defendants argue that the Court should overrule Plaintiffs’ objection to the
October 11, 2016 order. Resp. Opp. Obj. 3, ECF No. 111. They argue that Plaintiffs’ request to
change the October 11, 2016 order’s treatment of Issue 7 would “impose [an] extraordinary
burden [on them] even to attempt to identify and review all [such] documents and prepare a
privilege log.” Id. They further contend that the October 11, 2016 order’s limitation on the
discovery request is “especially reasonable” given that Plaintiffs did not focus their discovery
requests on attorney-client communications. Id.
This Court finds that the magistrate judge appropriately limited at this stage the scope of
the Issue 7 discovery request in the October 11, 2016 order. Plaintiffs fail to provide compelling
justification that would show that the magistrate judge clearly erred in his revisions.
V.

Conclusion
The Court will overrule Plaintiffs’ objection to the October 11, 2016 order. An order will

be issued in accordance with this memorandum opinion.

January 11, 2017

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc

4