Erickson v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc. et al

Filing 118

ORDER denying the Plaintiff's 117 Objection to the Order of the Magistrate Judge, filing 116 . Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM P. ERICKSON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated;
8:11CV215
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC.,
PROFESSIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
DANIEL A. MARTIN, C. J. TIGHE,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s objection, Filing No. 117, to the
order of the magistrate judge, Filing No. 116, denying his motion to compel production
of a class list, Filing No. 112, and sustaining the defendants’ objection thereto, Filing
No. 114. This is a class action for damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (hereinafter “FDCPA” or “Act”)
and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (“NCPA”), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1601 et
seq. See Filing No. 105, Order. The court has preliminarily approved a settlement. Id.
On review of a decision of the magistrate judge on a pretrial matter, the district
court may set aside any part of the magistrate judge’s order that it finds is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); In re
Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1986). See also Bialas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
59 F.3d 759, 764 (8th Cir. 1995) (noting “a magistrate is afforded broad discretion in the
resolution of nondispositive discovery disputes”).
Based on his familiarity with the case, the magistrate judge was within his
discretion to deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the list. The magistrate

judge held a hearing on the matter. The settlement agreement does not provide for
production of the class list. Under the agreement, class counsel are provided notice of
opt-out requests. Filing No. 103, Index of Evid., Attachment 1, Settlement Agreement,
part I at 12. The plaintiff has not shown that the magistrate judge’s findings are clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s objection, Filing No. 117, to the order of the
magistrate judge, Filing No. 116, is denied.
DATED this 20th day of November, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

2