Seipel et al v. Envirotech Remediation Services, Inc.
Filing
192
ORDER. Accordingly, the Order of Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham dated March 4, 2011 156 is AFFIRMED in all respects. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 6/20/11. (GRR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Gary Reed and Tom Vevea, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
Civil No. 09‐1976
EnviroTech Remediation Services, Inc., and
Lindstrom Cleaning & Construction, Inc.
d/b/a Lindstrom Restoration and
Lindstrom Environmental, Inc.,
Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________
Ruth S. Marcott and William K. Ecklund, Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt,
P.A. and Pamela Hodges Nissan and Natalie W. Kohner, Anderson, Helgen,
David & Nissen, P.A., Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Timothy A. Sullivan, Sarah E. Crippen and Elizabeth C. Borer, Best &
Flanagan LLP, Counsel for Defendant Lindstrom Cleaning & Construction, Inc.
d/b/a Lindstrom Restoration and Lindstrom Environmental, Inc.
____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Objections to Magistrate Judge
Jeanne J. Graham’s Order dated March 4, 2011 [Doc. No. 156] denying their
motion to compel discovery.
Plaintiffs object to those portions of the Order as to Plaintiffs’ Second
Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1‐3; Request No. 4 and Request No.
1
11.
On March 18, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the time to
appeal the Magistrate Judge’s March 4, 2011 Order to allow the parties the
opportunity to obtain clarification of the Order from Magistrate Judge Graham.
Plaintiffs nonetheless filed an objection to the March 4 Order on March 31, 2011.
Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge held a telephone conference on April 14, 2011 on
the parties’ request for clarification, and on April 18, 2011, the Magistrate Judge
issued an Order addressing the parties’ concerns.
The Court must modify or set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judgeʹs
Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Local Rule 72.2(a). Based on a review of the
record and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judgeʹs Order is neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Order of Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham dated March
4, 2011 [Doc. No. 156] is AFFIRMED in all respects.
Date: June 20, 2011
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?