Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Company et al

Filing 56

ORDER that the Plaintiff's Statement of Objections to Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order 49 is denied; and The Magistrate Judges Memorandum and Order (Filing 48 ) denying Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery (Filing 31 ) and granting Defendants motion for protective order (Filing 34 ) shall not be disturbed and is hereby sustained. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DESIGN BASICS, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARHART LUMBER COMPANY,
SCOTT BRIAN CARHART,
BRENDA KUHLMAN CARHART,
WILLIAM C. CARHART, and
MICHAEL HERBOLSHEIMER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV125

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Statement of Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Order. (Filing 49.) At issue is Magistrate
Judge Zwart’s order (Filing 48) denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery
(Filing 31) and granting Defendants’ motion for protective order (Filing 34).
Because I find after careful review that the order is not “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law,” the Statement of Objections will be denied. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); NECivR 72.2. See also Hajek v. Kumho Tire Co.,
Inc., No. 4:08CV3157, 2010 WL 1292447, at *2 (D. Neb. Mar. 30, 2010) (“In
discovery matters, the magistrate judge is afforded great deference,” and I may reverse
a Magistrate Judge’s decision only when clearly erroneous or contrary to law; “While
the standard of relevance in the context of discovery is broader than in the context of
admissibility . . . [,] this often intoned legal tenet should not be misapplied so as to
allow fishing expeditions in discovery.”); Brooks v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No.
8:05CV118, 2006 WL 2487937, at *3 (D. Neb. Aug. 25, 2006) (“Under a clearly
erroneous standard, a district court can reverse a magistrate judge’s order only if the
court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”;

“Under a contrary to law standard, a district court can reverse a magistrate judge’s
order only if the order fails to apply the relevant law.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Statement of Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
and Order (Filing 49) is denied; and

2.

The Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Order (Filing 48) denying
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Filing 31) and granting
Defendants’ motion for protective order (Filing 34) shall not be
disturbed and is hereby sustained.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2