Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Filing 19

ORDER denying 15 ORDER RE: APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 7/30/2018. (DLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No.: 18-768(DSD/FLN)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

John Doe, subscriber assigned
IP address 107.4.246.135,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court upon the appeal by plaintiff
Strike 3 Holdings LLC of Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel’s April
24, 2018, order denying its ex parte motion for leave to serve a
third-party subpoena prior to the Rule 26(f) conference.

After a

review of the order, and based on the file, record, and proceedings
herein, the court denies the appeal.
The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate
judge’s

order

deferential.”1

on

nondispositive

matters

is

“extremely

Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d

1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999).

The court will reverse such an order

only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3).

“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.”

1

Chakales

The court is unpersuaded by plaintiff’s argument that the
underlying motion is dispositive.
A request for service of a
subpoena is inherently non-dispositive.

v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

“A decision is

contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant
statutes, case law or rules of procedure.”

Knutson v. Blue Cross

& Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The court is satisfied that the magistrate judge properly
exercised its discretion in determining that plaintiff is not
entitled to premature service of a third-party subpoena in this
matter.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal [ECF No.
15] is denied.
Dated: July 30, 2018
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

2