Chauvin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 100

ORDER Overruling 80 Objection, filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KATHLEEN CHAUVIN, as Guardian and
Conservator or JOSEPH CHAUVIN, a legally
incapacitated person,

Case No. 10-11735
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff,
v.

HONORABLE MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois
Corporation
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION [80]
Now before the Court is Defendant’s Objection [80] to the Magistrate Judge’s Order [72]
denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel [19] and Awarding Costs.
Defendant seeks to compel the production of Plaintiff’s email address and Facebook
password. The Magistrate Judge denied Defendant’s Motion to Compel [19] by Order [72] and also
Awarded costs to Plaintiff. Defendant brings its objection arguing 1) that Plaintiff should be
compelled to produce the requested discovery and 2) that the award of costs was contrary to law.
Plaintiff filed a Response [84] to Defendant’s objection. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s
Objection [80] is overruled.
The standard of review set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) governs this
nondispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Pursuant to that rule, “The district judge in the
case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the [Magistrate Judge’s]
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a magistrate judge’s orders shall not be disturbed unless
“found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598,

603 (6th Cir. 2001). The “clearly erroneous” standard requires the Court to affirm the
Magistrate’s decision unless, after reviewing the entirety of the evidence, it “is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See Sandles v. U.S. Marshal’s
Serv., 2007 WL 4374077, 1 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
The Court has reviewed the entire record and sees no basis for granting Defendant the
discovery it seeks. The Magistrate Judge did not err in determining that the discovery requested
is “available to Defendant through less intrusive, less annoying and less speculative means than
this” even if it were deemed relevant. Order [72], at 4. There is no indication that granting
access to Plaintiff’s private Facebook account would be “reasonably calculated” to lead to
discovery of admissible information. The Magistrate Judge’s decision was not clearly erroneous
or contrary to the law.
Defendant also argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by awarding costs to Plaintiff.
Whether and to what extent discovery sanctions are warranted are for the court to decide in its
discretion. Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976);
Harmon v. CSX Trans., Inc., 110 F.3d 364, 366 (6th Cir. 1997). An abuse of discretion exists if
a decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law, the findings are clearly erroneous, or the
decision is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful. Youn. v. Track, Inc., 324 F.3d 409, 420
(6th Cir. 2003).
Defendant argues that since other judges have allowed discovery of the same kind that
the award of costs was unwarranted. Defendant’s argument, however, is not grounds for
reversing the Magistrate Judge’s order. An award of sanctions is discretionary. Defendant has
not shown that the Magistrate Judge abused her discretion.
2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Objection [80] is OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 20, 2011

______________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on October 20, 2011 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the
Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby
certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on
October 20, 2011: None.
s/Michael E. Lang
Deputy Clerk to
District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
[phone]

3