Contogouris et al v. WestPac Resources, LLC et al

Filing 489

ORDER & REASONS that the Magistrate Judges decision on the plaintiffs motion to compel is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 5/2/2012. (caa, )

*** TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL ***
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SPYRIDON C. CONTOGOURIS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

Versus

NO: 10-4609

PACIFIC WEST RESOURCES, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION “F”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiffs’ motion to review the
Magistrate Judge’s decision of April 2, 2012, denying their
motion to compel discovery from the defendants.

For the reasons

that follow, the Magistrate Judge’s decision is AFFIRMED.
I. Background
Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery on March 30, 2012,
which the Magistrate Judge denied on April 2, 2012.

Plaintiffs

now ask this Court to review the Magistrate Judge’s decision.
In their motion to compel, plaintiffs sought (a) an
unredacted copy of Costner 00062-62 for in camera review; (b)
non-privileged attachments to emails that evidence various draft
versions of the agreement between OTS and BP Exploration and
Production, Inc.; and (c) all post-March 20, 2011 documents which
are responsive to plaintiff’s discovery requests propounded to
date.
II. Discussion
A magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion in the

1

resolution of non-dispositive motions.

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

If a party objects to

a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, the
Court will disturb a magistrate’s ruling only when the ruling is
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a); see also Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir.
1995); Moody v. Callon Petroleum Operating Co., 37 F. Supp. 2d
805, 807 (E.D. La. 1999) (“The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard
requires that the court affirm the decision of the Magistrate
Judge unless ‘on the entire evidence the court is left with a
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.’”).

The Magistrate Judge’s decision in this case to

deny plaintiffs’ motion to compel was neither clearly erroneous,
nor contrary to law.
With respect to Costner’s document 00062-63, the Court finds
that Magistrate Judge Shushan had ample discretion to decide
whether she wanted to examine the document in camera.
decision not to do so is not clearly erroneous.

Her

Plaintiffs have

not asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, so any document
from Costner tending to show attempts by the defendants to
compete with OTS and potentially damage the interests of other
members would be irrelevant as the plaintiffs’ claims are framed.
As for plaintiffs’ request for all relevant post-March 20,
2011, documents, the Court agrees with the defendants that such a

2

request is overly broad, and untimely.

The plaintiffs failed to

object to the discovery cut-off at March 20, 2011.

That cut-off

date (agreed to by the plaintiffs) appears to have given the
parties ample scope for discovery given that all conduct forming
the basis of the plaintiffs’ claims allegedly occurred in the
early summer of 2010.
Last, defendants cannot be made to produce attachments to
emails that they do not have.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: the Magistrate Judge’s decision
on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel is AFFIRMED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 2, 2012.

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3