In the matter of: GATX Third Aircraft Corporation et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 41 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION
IN RE: GATX THIRD AIRCRAFT
CORPORATION ET AL.

NO: 16-13095
SECTION “H” (5)

ORDER
Before the Court is an Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order and Motion
for Review of Order (Doc. 41) filed by Petitioners-in-Limitation GATX Third
Aircraft Corporation, Brynmark Marine Services, Inc., and Double J. Marine,
LLC (collectively, “Petitioners”). Magistrate Judge North ordered the
production of surveillance evidence before the surveilled person’s deposition. 1
In doing so, Magistrate Judge North made a factual finding about the amount
of information the parties knew about the evidence and its potential
impeachment value. 2
“A magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order may only be set aside if it ‘is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.’ Accordingly, we review ‘factual findings
under a clearly erroneous standard,’ while ‘legal conclusions are reviewed de

1
2

Doc. 40.
See Doc. 40.

1

novo.’” 3 “An order is clearly erroneous if the court ‘is left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” 4
Petitioners have not convinced the Court that the Magistrate Judge
made a mistake as to the factual findings. Furthermore, Petitioners have not
identified controlling law that is contrary to the Magistrate Judge’s order, as
opposed to merely consistent with the opposite outcome.
Accordingly, Petitioners’ Motion is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 9th day of November, 2017.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3
4

Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 755 F.3d 802, 806 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).
Alphonse v. Arch Bay Holdings, L.L.C., 618 F. App’x 765, 768 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curium)
(quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)).

2