Kidwell v. Ruby IV, L.L.C.
Filing
276
ORDER AND REASONS re 251 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. IT IS ORDERED that the United States Magistrate Judge's August 7 and 8, 2019 Orders are AFFIRMED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 9/17/2019. (Reference: 18-2052)(sa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TAMMY KIDWELL, et al.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 18-2052 c/w 19-11419
RUBY IV, L.L.C., et al.
SECTION: M (5)
Pertains to 18-2052
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is an appeal by plaintiffs1 of the United States Magistrate Judge’s August
7 and 8, 2019 Orders.2 Having considered the United States Magistrate Judge’s Orders, the parties’
memoranda,3 the record, and the applicable law, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the United States
Magistrate Judge’s August 7 and 8, 2019 Orders.
Plaintiffs seek review of the United States Magistrate Judge’s Orders refusing to sanction
defendants for allegedly failing to comply with the parties’ written agreements regarding privilege
log disputes, holding that defendants have not been dilatory with their production of records for
opt-in plaintiffs, holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of expenses relating to
defendants’ discovery conduct, and requiring the parties to engage in status conferences with the
him prior to filing any future discovery motions.4
Magistrate judges are empowered to “hear and determine” certain non-dispositive pretrial
motions, including discovery disputes. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). If a party is dissatisfied with a
magistrate judge’s ruling, it may appeal to the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). When a timely
objection is raised, the district court will “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
1
R. Doc. 251.
R. Docs. 244-45.
3
R. Docs. 251-1, 261 & 270.
4
R. Doc. 251-1.
2
erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A district court reviews
the magistrate judge’s “factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, while legal conclusions
are reviewed de novo.” Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 755 F.3d 802, 806 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal
citation omitted). A factual “finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
“[D]iscovery decisions are usually quintessential examples of the exercise of discretion – district
judges do not substitute their own judgment for that of the magistrate judge.” Nunn v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2044477, at *4 (N.D. Tex. May 24, 2010).
The discovery orders issued by the United States Magistrate Judge on August 7 and 8,
2019, were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The United States Magistrate Judge has
been deeply involved in the numerous discovery disputes that have arisen in this contentious case.
As such, this Court will not interfere in the United States Magistrate Judge’s reasoned and
measured management of this difficult discovery process. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
the United States Magistrate Judge’s August 7 and 8, 2019 Orders are AFFIRMED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of September, 2019.
_________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?