Territa et al v. Oliver et al

Filing 254

ORDER re 239 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court; ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's order requiring Robert's deposition to be taken first is AFFIRMED. Robert's request to deny the Territas' motion to quash and award Robert reasonable attorneys' fees DENIED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/10/2013. (NEF: MJ Knowles)(gbw, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TINA TERRITA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 11-1830

KEVIN A. OLIVER, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order filed by
plaintiff-in-intervention, Michelle Robert ("Robert").1 Defendants-in-intervention, Michael
Territa and Tina Territa (the "Territas") oppose Robert's motion.2 Robert filed a reply in
response to the Territas' opposition.3
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2013, the Territas' filed a Motion to Quash depositions scheduled for
October 23, 2013.4 The Territas' motion was set for oral hearing on November 13, 2013
before Magistrate Judge Knowles. At the November 13, 2013 oral hearing, Judge Knowles
granted the Territas' motion in part, and ordered the parties to meet and confer to select
mutually-agreeable dates for the depositions at issue.5 Judge Knowles further ordered
Robert's deposition to be taken first, citing the Court's broad discretion in regulating
discovery and the custom of the Court to order the depositions of the party whose

1

R. Doc. 239.

2

R. Doc. 244.

3

R. Doc. 250.

4

R. Doc. 227.

5

R. Doc. 236, p. 1.

allegations began the lawsuit first.6
Robert moves for review of Magistrate Judge Knowles' November 13, 2013 order,
asking this Court to set it aside, deny the Territas' motion to quash, award reasonable
attorneys' fees to Robert for having to respond to the motion, and to reverse Magistrate
Judge Knowles' order requiring Robert to be deposed before the Territas.7
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Robert seeks review of the Magistrate Judge's ruling based on Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a). If a party disagrees with a Magistrate Judge's ruling, 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); LR 72.2. As another
section of this Court summarized:
Under this standard, factual findings are reviewed for clear error, which is
present when the reviewing court upon examination of the entire evidence is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Conclusions of law should be overturned when the magistrate fails to apply
or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure. For issues that
are committed by law to a judge's discretion, such as the resolution of
discovery disputes, the magistrate's rulings are reviewed for abuse of
discretion.
Kiln Underwriting Ltd. v. Jesuit High Sch. of New Orleans, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86286
(E.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)(Berrigan, J)(citations and quotation marks omitted).
Robert argues Magistrate Judge Knowles committed legal error because the proper
vehicle for the Territas' Motion to Quash was a motion for a protective order under Rule
26(c), and Magistrate Judge Knowles failed to take into account the considerations
6

R. Doc. 236, p. 2.

7

R. Doc. 239.

2

necessary to resolve a motion for a protective order. Despite Robert's attempts to frame the
Territas' motion as one for a protective order, it was filed as a motion to quash.8
Having reviewed the record, the Magistrate Judge's order, and the parties'
memoranda, the Court does not find any legal error. Robert has not shown the Magistrate
Judge "fail[ed] to apply or missappl[ied] any relevant statutes, case law or rules of
procedure." Kiln Underwriting Ltd. v. Jesuit High Sch. of New Orleans, 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 86286 (E.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)(citations and quotation marks omitted). Thus, the
Magistrate Judge's ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id.
After considering the arguments of the parties and the decision of the Magistrate
Judge, in which he appropriately considered which party should be deposed first, the Court
finds the Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion. Furthermore, the Court does not
find any authority which would allow Robert to recover attorneys' fees under the
circumstances.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Magistrate Judge's order requiring Robert's
deposition to be taken first is AFFIRMED. Robert's request to deny the Territas' motion
to quash and award Robert reasonable attorneys' fees DENIED.

10th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of December, 2013.

_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

See R. Doc. 227.

3