Comardelle v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company et al

Filing 571

ORDER re 565 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court; ORDERED that the 566 motion for an expedited hearing is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that plaintiffs seek review of the U.S. Magistrate Judge's order regarding their motion to quash Ray Comardelle's deposition, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. FURTHER ORDERED that the order of the U.S. Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED in all other respects. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/10/2014. (blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MICHAEL COMARDELLE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 13-6555

PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER
Before the Court is an appeal1 filed by plaintiffs of an order2 of the U.S. Magistrate Judge
denying plaintiffs’ motion3 to quash the deposition of Ray Comardelle and to strike him as a
witness. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for an expedited hearing.4
Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nondispositive pretrial
matters decided by a U.S. Magistrate Judge may be appealed to the U.S. District Court Judge.
The order of a U.S. Magistrate Judge may be reversed only “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). “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.’” Kiln Underwriting Ltd. v.
Jesuit High Sch. of New Orleans, No. 06-4350, 2008 WL 4724390, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 24,
2008) (Vance, J.) (quoting Bolding v. Comm’r, 117 F.3d 270, 273 (5th Cir. 1997)). “Conclusions
of law should be overturned when the magistrate ‘fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes,

1

R. Doc. No. 565.
R. Doc. No. 505.
3
R. Doc. No. 443.
4
R. Doc. No. 566.
2

case law or rules of procedure.’” Id. (quoting Carmona v. Wright, 233 F.R.D. 270, 276
(N.D.N.Y. 2006)).
However, as applicable here, with regard to “‘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.’” Energy Intelligence Grp., Inc. v. Canal Barge Co., No. 122107, 2014 WL 201698, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 17, 2014) (Zainey, J.) (quoting Kiln, 2008 WL
4724390, at *2); see also Lebron v. Ensco Offshore Co., No. 12-1901, 2013 WL 3967165, at *2
(W.D. La. July 31, 2013); Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J.
2006). “This deferential standard is especially appropriate where the Magistrate Judge has
managed this case from the outset and developed a thorough knowledge of the proceedings.”
Doe, 237 F.R.D. at 548.
Ray Comardelle’s deposition has already occurred.5 With respect to plaintiffs’ motion to
strike Ray Comardelle as a witness, after reviewing the briefing before the U.S. Magistrate
Judge,6 the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s order,7 and plaintiffs’ appeal,8 the Court finds that the U.S.
Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion.9 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for an expedited hearing is GRANTED.
5

See R. Doc. No. 565-4.
R. Doc. Nos. 443, 490.
7
R. Doc. No. 505.
8
R. Doc. No. 565.
9
In evaluating whether evidence should be excluded for failure to comply with a scheduling
order or as a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(c), courts “look to: ‘(1) the importance of the
evidence; (2) the prejudice to the opposing party of including the evidence; (3) the possibility of
curing such prejudice by granting a continuance; and (4) the explanation for the party’s failure to
disclose.” Patterson v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F. App’x 367, 369 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Tex. A&M Research Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 2003)); accord
Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 1990); see also Quanta Servs. Inc. v. Am.
Admin. Grp., Inc., 384 F. App’x 291, 295 (5th. Cir. 2008) (citing Geiserman in reviewing the
district court’s exclusion of a fact witness). Such issues were thoroughly briefed before the U.S.
Magistrate Judge. See R. Doc. Nos. 443, 490.
6

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that plaintiffs seek review of the U.S.
Magistrate Judge’s order regarding their motion to quash Ray Comardelle’s deposition, the
appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the order of the U.S. Magistrate Judge is
AFFIRMED in all other respects.

New Orleans, Louisiana, December 10, 2014.

_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3