Treaty Energy Corporation et al John Doe 1, et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 64 MOTION for REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 2/1/13. (sek, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TREATY ENERGY CORPORATION

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-1314

JOHN DOES

SECTION: “J”(5)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff, Treaty Energy Corporation
(“TECO”)’s Motion for Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Order
(Rec. Doc. 63) denying TECO’s Motion for Leave to Conduct
Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference and granting Defendants’
Motions to Quash. (Rec. Doc. 64) The motion was set for hearing
on the briefs on December 19, 2012. Two defendants, who at this
point are only known by their usernames, “Smithsd7" and “Xylan,”
have filed an Opposition. (Rec. Doc. 66) TECO has replied. (Rec.
Doc. 67-1)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), within 14 days
of service with an order of a magistrate judge on a nondispositive pretrial matter, a party may apply to the district
court judge for review of the magistrate judge’s order. With
respect to pretrial discovery matters like those at issue in this
case, “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 contrary to law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a);

Kendall Co. v. Southern Med. Supplies, Inc., No. 94-0150, 1996 WL
99340, at *1-2 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 1996) (applying “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law standard” in context of motion for
review of Magistrate Judge’s order granting motion to quash
subpoena). Under this highly deferential standard, a magistrate
judge’s ruling “should not be rejected merely because the court
would have decided the matter differently.” Ordemann v.
Unidentified Party, No. 06-4796, 2008 WL 695253, at *1 (E.D. La.
Mar. 12, 2008) (quoting Rubin v. Valicenti Advisory Servs., Inc.,
471 F. Supp. 2d 329, 333 (W.D.N.Y. 2007)). Rather, the decision
must be affirmed unless, “on the entire evidence [the Court] is
left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.
364, 395 (1948).
Having independently considered the motion, the parties’
memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds
that the Magistrate Judge’s order was not clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that TECO’s Motion for Review of the
Magistrate Judge’s Order (Rec. Doc. 64) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of February, 2013.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2