Stockwell et al v. Hamilton et al

Filing 140

ORDER Rejecting Plaintiffs' 109 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order and Affirming Order. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (EKar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS W. STOCKWELL and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No. 15-11609
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
JOHN M. HAMILTON and
WILLIAM B. ROUGH,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S ORDER AND AFFIRMING ORDER
On May 3, 2018, Magistrate Judge Patti issued a decision granting in part
and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion regarding the deposition of non-party
witness John A. Orecchio (“Orecchio”). (ECF No. 92.) When the motion was
filed, Orecchio was at a half-way house in Brooklyn, New York, finishing out a
prison sentence for a conviction of conspiracy to interfere with commerce in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Magistrate Judge Patti granted Plaintiffs’ request to
depose Orecchio, but denied their request to extend the deposition beyond the oneday, seven-hour limitation in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1). The matter
is now before the Court on Plaintiffs’ objections to Magistrate Judge Patti’s
decision. (ECF No. 109.) Defendant John Hamilton filed a response to Plaintiffs’

objections (ECF No. 110) and Plaintiffs have filed a reply brief. (ECF 115.) The
matter has been intermittently stayed and delayed since Magistrate Judge Patti
issued his decision; however, the matter is now moving forward and the Court is
prepared to rule on Plaintiffs’ objections.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive decision, the
reviewing court must affirm the magistrate judge’s ruling unless the objecting
party demonstrates that it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The “clearly erroneous” standard does not
empower a reviewing court to reverse a magistrate judge’s finding because it
would have decided the matter differently. See, e.g., Anderson v. Bessemer City,
N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). Instead, the “clearly erroneous” standard is met
when despite the existence of evidence to support the finding, the court, upon
reviewing the record in its entirety, “is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). If two permissible views exist, the reviewing
court cannot find a decision to be “clearly erroneous.” See id. (citations omitted);
see also United States v. Dillard, 438 F.3d 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2006).
Magistrate Judge Patti’s decision to deny Plaintiffs’ request to extend the
time-limits for Orecchio’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Magistrate Judge
Patti thoroughly considered all of Plaintiffs’ arguments for why the deposition
2

should exceed seven hours, many of which are the same arguments Plaintiffs assert
in their objections. Notably, while Plaintiffs’ objections have been pending,
Orecchio has been released from custody. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc.
Moreover, Plaintiffs exaggerate the complexity of this case and the scope of
material to cover with Orecchio. Further, many of their arguments are speculative
with respect to Orecchio’s availability and how the deposition—when it does
occur—will proceed.
As Magistrate Judge Patti indicated in his decision, if Plaintiffs are unable to
complete their deposition of Orecchio within the duration afforded under Rule
30(d)(1), they can then file a motion for more time. In fact, in every case this
Court reviewed where an extension of time was sought and granted, the request
was made after the initial deposition of the party or witness. This may explain why
Plaintiffs did not cite a single case addressing an extension of Rule 30(d)(1)’s
duration in their briefs to demonstrate that Magistrate Judge Patti’s decision was
clearly erroneous. After the deposition, a court can more aptly identify the
reason(s) why the deposition could not be completed within the one-day, sevenhour limit. Extending the duration of a deposition before it occurs provides leeway
for inefficient questioning not necessarily directed at the most pertinent issues that
need to be explored.

3

For these reasons, the Court is REJECTING Plaintiffs’ objections to
Magistrate Judge Patti’s May 3, 2018 order and is AFFIRMING that decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 17, 2019

4