Groupwell International (HK) Limited v. Gourmet Express, LLC

Filing 131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Groupwells Objection 122 and Supplemental Objection 124 to Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhls Order of February 22, 2013 are OVERRULED and Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhls Order 120 is AFFIRMED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gourmets Request for Oral Argument 127 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 3/25/13. cc:counsel (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-CV-00094-M
GROUPWELL INTERNATIONAL (HK) LIMITED

PLAINTIFF

V.
GOURMET EXPRESS, LLC

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Groupwell’s Objection [DN 122] and its Supplemental
Objection [DN 124] to Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhl’s Order of February 22, 2013 [DN 120]. Also
before the Court is Gourmet’s Request for Oral Argument [DN 127]. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe
for decision. For the following reasons, Groupwell’s objections are OVERRULED and Magistrate
Judge Brennenstuhl’s Order is AFFIRMED. Gourmet’s request for oral argument is DENIED.
The parties dispute whether Gourmet may conduct discovery as to matters occurring before
January 23, 2008, the cut-off date for claims that Gourmet can assert against Groupwell. On
February 22, 2013, Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhl entered an order discussing the issue, finding that
Gourmet “will not be confined to discovery of only those facts and events taking place after January
23, 2008.” (Order [DN 120] 5.) Groupwell has since filed an objection and a supplemental objection,
requesting that the Court reverse Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhl’s decision and enter a protective
order prohibiting Gourmet from conducting discovery on matters occurring before January 23, 2008.
“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that
the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A decision is “clearly erroneous” when “although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

Where there are two plausible views, a decision cannot be “clearly erroneous.” Anderson v.
Bessemer City, N.V., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). In this case, Groupwell contends that Magistrate
Judge Brennenstuhl’s ruling was clearly erroneous because he did not consider its position on many
of Gourmet’s arguments. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, however, the Court finds Groupwell’s
contention without merit.
In his order, Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhl recognizes that Groupwell “makes well-reasoned
arguments as to why the evidence of record . . . lends little support to Gourmet’s counterclaim.” He
then finds, however, that “the objective of testimony is to unearth evidence supporting a claim” and
that many of Groupwell’s arguments, in essence, ask the court to pass judgment on the merits of
Gourmet’s claims or defenses. (Order [DN 120] 4.) The Court concludes that it is not left with a firm
and definite conviction that these findings constitute mistakes. As Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhl
notes, if Groupwell believes that a request is beyond the scope of discovery or is of such
burdensome nature to be unreasonable, it may make an objection. (Id. at 5–6.) The Court also finds
that an oral argument is unnecessary since the pertinent issues are adequately addressed in the
parties’ briefs.
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Groupwell’s Objection
[DN 122] and Supplemental Objection [DN 124] to Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhl’s Order of
February 22, 2013 are OVERRULED and Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhl’s Order [DN 120] is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gourmet’s Request for Oral Argument [DN 127] is
DENIED.

cc: counsel of record
March 25, 2013

2