Corbello v. DeVito

Filing 525

ORDER that the 520 MOTION for District Judge to Reconsider 499 Order is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge as a motion to clarify. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/20/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
DONNA CORBELLO,

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14

This case arises out of alleged copyright infringement. Plaintiff Donna Corbello is the

9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
THOMAS GAETANO DEVITO et al.,
12
Defendants.

2:08-cv-00867-RCJ-PAL
ORDER

15

widow of an attorney who assisted Defendant Thomas Gaetano “Tommy” DeVito in writing his

16

autobiography (“the Work”). Plaintiff alleges that DeVito and others wrongfully appropriated

17

the Work to write the screenplay for Jersey Boys, a hit Broadway musical based on the band The

18

Four Seasons that has played in the United States, England, and Australia, grossing many

19

millions of dollars. Corbello has sued several companies and individuals, including several

20

members of the band The Four Seasons, for copyright infringement.

21

Pretrial practice in this case, particularly discovery practice, has been acrimonious. The

22

Magistrate Judge on April 15, 2011 issued thirteen orders, mostly concerning motions to compel

23

and ancillary motions related to motions to compel. Plaintiff has now filed an objection to those

24

orders, which in reality is a motion to clarify properly directed to the Magistrate Judge. The

25

following excerpt from the motion makes it appear that Plaintiff’s grievance is not with the

1

Magistrate Judge’s orders, but with Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with them. “The

2

Magistrate Judge’s order . . . is clearly erroneous in certain respects and should be modified. . . .

3

[Defendant] is taking advantage of loose and imprecise language in the Magistrate Judge’s order

4

to avoid producing obviously relevant and important documents.” (Mot., 5:15-20, May 5, 2011,

5

ECF No. 520). This is not a complaint that the Magistrate Judge erred, and it is therefore not a

6

Rule 72(a) motion, regardless of how Plaintiff attempts to characterize it. It is a complaint that

7

Defendants are failing to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s orders. Plaintiff must direct this

8

grievance to the Magistrate Judge. Only if the Magistrate Judge clarifies her orders in a way that

9

is unsatisfactory to Plaintiff—and in a way that the Court can identify the precise ruling—will a

10

Rule 72(a) motion be appropriate, because only then will the Court have a clear ruling from the

11

Magistrate Judge to examine.

12

CONCLUSION

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Emergency Objection to Magistrate Judge’s April

14

15, 2011 Orders (ECF No. 520) is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge as a motion to clarify.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day day of May, 2011.
DATED this 20th of May, 2011.

17
18

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2