Federal Insurance Company v. Steris Corporation et al

Filing 78

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1. Siemens Canada Limited's Objection (Doc. No. 69) to the Magistrate Judge's September 25, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 63) is MOOT. 2. The Court respectfully declines to adopt Chief Magistrate Judge Boylan's Se ptember 25, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 63). 3. Steris' request to proceed with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Siemens Canada is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. Steris' request for sanctions against Siemens Canada is DENIED. 5. Siemens Canada's Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED AS MOOT (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/22/12. (LPH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Federal Insurance Company,
as subrogee of HealthPartners, Inc.,

Case No. 11-cv-00078 (SRN/AJB)

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

v.
Steris Corporation and Siemens Canada
Ltd.,
Defendant.

Larry R. Eaton, Cozen O’Connor, 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1900, Chicago, IL
60606 and Patrick H. O’Neill, Jr. and Stephen M. Warner, O’Neill & Murphy, LLP, 332
Minnesota Street, Suite W2600, St. Paul, MN 55101, for Plaintiff.
Jessica A. Megorden, Nicholas H. Jakobe, and Patrick D. Reilly, Erstad & Riemer, PA,
8009 - 34th Avenue South, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55425-4409, for Defendant
Steris Corporation.
Alana K. Bassin and Patrick L. Arneson, Bowman & Brooke LLP, 150 South 5th Street,
Suite 3000, Minneapolis, MN 55402 and John T. Richmond , Jr., Husch Blackwell LLP,
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, MO 63105, for Defendant Siemens Canada
Limited.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Siemens Canada Limited’s (“Siemens
Canada”) Objection to Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan’s September 25, 2012
Order denying Siemens Canada’s Motion for a Protective Order. (Doc. No. 69.) For the
reasons state below, the Court respectfully declines to adopt Chief Magistrate Judge
Boylan’s September 25, 2012 Order on the grounds that Siemens Canada’s objection is now
1

moot.
I.

BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2011, Siemens Canada filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for

lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 9.) The Court held a hearing on August 25, 2011
and then issued an Order dated August 26, 2011 denying Siemens Canada’s Motion without
prejudice and allowing Plaintiff Federal Insurance Company (“Federal Insurance”) and
Defendant Steris Corporation (“Steris”) to conduct limited discovery related to personal
jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 28.)
Federal Insurance subsequently served interrogatories and document requests related
to the issue of personal jurisdiction. (Def. Siemens Canada Ltd.’s Objection, Doc. No. 69,
at p. 2.) On November 8, 2011, after a discovery conference with Chief Magistrate Judge
Boylan, Siemens Canada responded to the interrogatories and document requests. (Id.)
Six months later, in May 2012, Steris served a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(b)(6) corporate deposition notice on Siemens Canada. (Id.) In response, Siemens
Canada filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction on June 19,
2012. (Doc. No. 42.) The Court held a hearing on the motion on July 31, 2012 and took the
matter under advisement. (Doc. No. 50.)
While Siemens Canada’s motion to dismiss was still under advisement with the
Court, Steris served on counsel for Siemens Canada a Second Amended Rule 30(b)(6)
Deposition Notice and a Subpoena. (Doc. No. 70, Ex. B.) On September 10, 2012,
Siemens Canada filed a Motion for Protective Order seeking to stay discovery directed to
Siemens Canada until the Court ruled on its Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 51.) Chief
2

Magistrate Judge Boylan heard argument from counsel regarding Siemens Canada’s Motion
for Protective Order on September 25, 2012. (Doc. No. 62.) That same day, Chief
Magistrate Judge Boylan issued an Order denying Siemens Canada’s Motion for Protective
Order and granting Steris’ request to proceed with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Siemens
Canada. (Doc. No. 63.) Siemens Canada filed an Objection to the Order on October 5,
2012. (Doc. No. 69.) On October 19, 2012, this Court issued an Order granting Siemens
Canada’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 76.)
II.

DISCUSSION
The standard of review for an appeal of a magistrate judge’s order on a non-

dispositive issue is extremely deferential. Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d
1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). The Court must affirm the order unless it is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(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.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). If the
magistrate judge’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its
entirety, the reviewing court may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been
sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Anderson v.
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573–74 (1985).
On October 19, 2012, the Court issued an Order finding that it lacked personal
jurisdiction over Siemens Canada and dismissed it as a party to this action. As a result,
Steris’ request to take a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) corporate deposition of
3

Siemens Canada is now moot. Chief Magistrate Judge Boylan did not have the benefit of
the Court’s ruling on Siemens Canada’s motion to dismiss when he issued his Order on
September 25, 2012. Having found that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Siemens Canada,
the Court determines that Siemens Canada’s Motion for a Protective Order is moot. The
Court therefore respectfully declines to adopt Magistrate Judge Boylan’s September 25,
2012 Order and finds that Siemens Canada’s Objection is moot. In the absence of personal
jurisdiction and the dismissal of Siemens Canada as a party, any deposition of Siemens
Canada personnel will have to be noticed under the Hague Convention’s rules regarding
discovery against third parties in Canada.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Siemens Canada Limited’s Objection (Doc. No. 69) to the Magistrate
Judge’s September 25, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 63) is MOOT.

2.

The Court respectfully declines to adopt Chief Magistrate Judge Boylan’s
September 25, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 63).

3.

Steris’ request to proceed with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Siemens Canada
is DENIED AS MOOT.

4.

Steris’ request for sanctions against Siemens Canada is DENIED.

5.

Siemens Canada’s Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED
AS MOOT.

Dated: October 22, 2012

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
4