Anderson Management Services, LLC, et al v. American Media, Inc., et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration regarding 12 Order on Motion to Quash: Magistrate Judge Webb's June 12, 2013, orders are AFFIRMED for the reasons stated therein, and movants' motions for reconsideration are DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Malcolm J. Howard on 12/5/2013. (Lee, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:13-CV-620-H
No. 5:13-CV-621-H
ANDERSON MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC, et. al.,
Movants,

v.

ORDER

AMERICAN MEDIA,

INC., et. al.,)
)

Respondents.

)

These matters are before the court pursuant to Rule
of the

Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure on rriovants'

appeals of

two orders by United States Magistrate Judge William A.
June

12,

2013,

subpoenas
("620")

served

DE #16],

CV-621-H
motions

("621")
for

magistrate
have

denying movants'
on

Regions

Bank

DE #18].

1

judge's

order

filed,

and

Webb on

to quash the non-party
[5:13-CV-620-H

("Regions")

and Bank of America Corporation

("BoA")

[5:13-

Also before the court are movants'

reconsideration

been

motions

7 2 (a)

seeking

[620

DE

these

#13,

the

same

621

matters

DE
are

relief
#15].
now

from

the

Responses
ripe

for

adjudication.

The Regions subpoena case is number 5:13-CV-620-H, and the BoA subpoena
case is number 5:13-CV-621-H.
Both cases are considered together in this
order because they share common movants and relate to discovery in the same
underlying case currently pending in the Southern District of New York,
Anderson News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-02227-PAC.

Once a party has raised objections to an order issued by a
magistrate

judge,

the

district

judge

"must

consider

timely

objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law."
see

a 1 so

2 8 U. S . C .

reconsider

any

6 3 6 (b) ( 1 ) (A)

§

magistrate

( "A

judge's

order

is

R.

j udge

pretrial

[nondispositive]

magistrate judge has decided]

Fed.

Ci v.

of the
matter

P.

7 2 (a) ;

court rna y
[which

a

where it has been shown that the
clearly

erroneous

or

contrary

to

law.").
Movants sought to quash the subpoenas served by respondents
on Regions and BoA

(collectively "the banks"),

financial records.

The underlying matter is pending before the

Southern

District

of

New

York,

in

which

seeking movants'

plaintiffs

in

the

underlying action allege claims pursuant to the Sherman Act,
U.S. C.
that

§

1,

against

anti trust

and the motions

respondents.

action.
to

Only the

Movants

are

subpoenas

quash are before the

not

parties

issued May

court

in the

15
to

10,2013
instant

matter.
Movants argue that Judge Webb's June 12,
erroneous
relied
First,

on

in denying their motions
inaccurate

information

to
and

2013,

orders were

quash because the
misinterpreted

the

court
law.

the orders stated that the banks did not formally object

to the subpoenas, and movants claim that is not true because the

2

banks

served

quash were

objections

filed.

to

respondents

after

the

motions

Upon review of these objections,

to

the court

finds the objections are not substantive and that the banks are
willing to comply with the subpoenas because they have not filed
their

own

subpoenas

motions
seek

to

quash.

irrelevant

Movants

information,

also
and

object

that

the

therefore

they

are

not adequately protected by the protective order entered in the
antitrust
information
stipulation

case.
for
to

Given
discovery
the

the

broad

purposes

protective

order,

definition
and

the

this

court

of

relevant

movants'
finds

own
these

arguments untenable. 2

Additionally, movants object to the findings that they lack standing and
did not comply with the local rules.
However, the court need not reach these
issues, because the magistrate judge's order ultimately examined the motion
as though movants had standing and complied with the local rules.

3

The court has carefully reviewed movants'

objections to the

June 12, 2013, orders, as well as respondents'

responses and the

other

documents

magistrate

of

judge's

record.
decisions

The
as

court

to

the

concludes
motions

neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
June

12,

2013,

orders

are

AFFIRMED

for

the

to

that

the

quash

are

Accordingly, the
reasons

stated

therein, and movants' motions for reconsideration are DENIED.

S 7li

This ____ day of December 2013.
/·--..,

MALCOLM J. HOWARD
Senior United States District Judge

At Greenville, NC
#33

4