Bennis v. Minnesota Hockey Ventures Group, LP
ORDER denying 31 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 1/14/13. (LPH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-341 (SRN/JSM)
Minnesota Hockey Ventures Group,
d/b/a Minnesota Sports and
Jay Tentinger, Tentinger Law Firm, PA, 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite 318, Eagan,
Minnesota 55121, for Plaintiff.
Thomas J. Conley, Law Office of Thomas J. Conley, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 900,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, for Defendant.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Appeal/Objection Regarding
Magistrate Judge Mayeron’s Order of December 17, 2012 [Doc. No. 31]. “The standard
of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive issue is
extremely deferential.” Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp.2d 1005, 1007 (D.
Minn.1999). This Court will reverse such an order only if it is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a).
The Magistrate Judge’s Order of December 17, 2012 (“the Order”) granted in part
and denied in part a motion to compel brought by Plaintiff William Bennis concerning the
deposition of witness Rachael Johnson. Magistrate Judge Mayeron ordered Defendant
Minnesota Hockey Ventures Group to produce Ms. Johnson for the completion of her
deposition for a period of forty-three minutes. (Order ¶ 2 [Doc. No. 30].) In addition, the
Magistrate Judge ruled that Ms. Johnson may appear for the deposition telephonically.
(Id. ¶ 3.) Finally, Magistrate Judge Mayeron denied Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees
associated with bringing the motion to compel.
Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is contrary to law, as well as
custom and practice. (Pl.’s Appeal at 2 [Doc. No. 31].) Bennis contends that because of
the number of exhibits, 43 minutes is an insufficient amount of time in which to complete
Johnson’s deposition. (Id.) In addition, Bennis wishes to depose Johnson in person. (Id.)
Finally, Bennis appeals the denial of the award of attorney’s fees. (Id. at 2-3.)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A), the Court has discretion to set certain
conditions on discovery, including, for instance, the length of depositions. As noted, the
Magistrate Judge’s Order granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion. (Order of
12/17/12 [Doc. No. 30].) The Magistrate Judge’s decision not to award attorney’s fees
was within the Court’s discretion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(C) (stating that
apportionment of expenses are permissive where the Court grants a motion in part and
denies a motion in part). Having conducted the required review of Magistrate Judge
Mayeron’s Order, the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law. The appeal is therefore denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Appeal/Objection Regarding Magistrate Judge Mayeron’s Order of
December 17, 2012 [Doc. No. 31] is DENIED.
Dated: January 14, 2013
s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
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?