Marks v. Westwind Helicopters Inc et al

Filing 198

RULING dismissing 164 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision re 159 Order on Motion to Stay, Order on Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D Dick on 8/15/2018. (crt,Whidden, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

*
*
*
*
VERSUS
*
*
WESTWIND HELICOPTERS, INC., ET AL. *
*
*
JAMES MARKS, ET AL.

NO. 6:15-CV-1735 (LEAD)
NO. 6:15-CV-1745
JUDGE DOHERTY
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

RULING
Before the Court is an Appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order.
Defendant Rolls-Royce appeals Magistrate Judge Whitehurst’s Order (Rec. Doc. 159)
which denied Rolls-Royce Corporation’s Motion to Stay Discovery, or Alternatively for a
Protective Order (Rec. Doc. 121). The Appeal is opposed by all Plaintiffs. (Rec. Docs.
169, 172, 173). The Court has considered the submissions of the Parties, the procedural
and factual background, and the applicable law and, for the following reasons, the Appeal
is DENIED and the Magistrate Judge’s discovery Order is hereby AFFIRMED.
This appeal is governed by Rule 72(a), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he
district judge ... must ... modify or set aside any part of the [magistrate judge's] order that
is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” “When a party appeals a magistrate judge's
order, [it] must demonstrate how the order is reversible under the applicable standard of
review—de novo for error of law, clear error for fact findings, or abuse of discretion for
discretionary matters.”1 “The clearly erroneous standard applies to the factual

1

Orthoflex, Inc. v. ThermoTek, Inc., 990 F.Supp.2d 675, 682–83 (N.D.Tex., 2013), Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins.
Co. v. Bellows, 2003 WL 21501904, at *1 (N.D.Tex. June 24, 2003).

components of the magistrate judge's decision.”2 “The district court may not disturb a
factual finding of the magistrate judge unless, although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.”3
A magistrate judge is permitted broad discretion in resolving nondispositive pretrial
motions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A magistrate's order concerning nondispositive
matters may only be reconsidered where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's
order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.4
Rolls-Royce argues that it was clear error for the Magistrate Judge to decline to
stay discovery pending disposition of Rolls-Royce’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, for Sanctions based on Spoliation of Evidence (Rec. Doc. 117). Rolls-Royce
passionately asserts that “in allowing unfettered discovery of Rolls-Royce to proceed
before this Court decides Rolls-Royce’s pending Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
for Sanctions based on Spoliation of Evidence, the decision of the Magistrate Judge, with
all deference, was clearly erroneous.”
However, the record reveals that discovery had been propounded to Rolls-Royce
before the Motion to Dismiss was filed, which discovery went unanswered. After the
Motion to Dismiss, premised on spoliation was filed, Plaintiff Westwind Helicopters, Inc.
(“Westwind”) propounded additional written discovery to Rolls-Royce which Westwind

2

Orthoflex, Inc. v. ThermoTek, Inc., 990 F.Supp.2d 675, 682–83 (N.D.Tex., 2013), Lahr v. Fulbright &
Jaworski, L.L.P., 164 F.R.D. 204, 208 (N.D.Tex.1996), quoting Smith v. Smith, 154 F.R.D. 661, 665
(N.D.Tex.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3
Id.
4
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 755 F.3d 802, 806 & n. 6 (5th Cir.2014).

contends seeks information “directly related to the discovery issue Rolls-Royce raised”5
in its Motion to Dismiss.
Rolls-Royce concedes that “a stay of discovery is not appropriate when it could
prevent a party from ‘having a sufficient opportunity to develop a factual base for
defending against a dispositive motion.’”6 Spoliation, the gravamen of Rolls-Royce’s
Motion to Dismiss is a fact intensive inquiry. Under the circumstances presented, the
Court finds no clear error by the Magistrate Judge in declining to stay discovery. The
Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order is hereby AFFIRMED and Rolls-Royce’s appeal is
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on August 15, 2018.

S

CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

5
6

Rec. Doc. 172.
Rec. Doc. 164-1 citing Parish of Jefferson v. La. S. Recovery Mgmt., Inc., 1996 WL 144400.