Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Successor By Merger To Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation

Filing 107

ORDER Overruling Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, as Receiver for
Washington Mutual Bank,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-13706
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Successor by Merger to
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
Before the court are Defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company’s
objections to the magistrate judge’s rulings on its motion to compel discovery.
Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company and Non-Party JPMorgan Chase
Bank submitted responses, to which Defendant replied. Defendant’s objections
relate to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s March 24, 2017 opinion and order
denying Defendant’s motion to compel.
The court may modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s
order that is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A 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.” Anderson v. City
of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. U. S.
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The court may not disturb the
magistrate’s factual findings “even though convinced that had it been sitting as the
trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Id. The court allows
the magistrate’s legal conclusions to stand unless they are “contrary to law.”
Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992) aff’d, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th
Cir. 1994).
Having reviewed the record and Defendant’s objections, the court finds that
Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s March 24, 2017 order is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s objections are
OVERRULED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: June 1, 2017

-2-

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on this date, June 1, 2017, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-