Eshelman v. Auerbach et al

Filing 266

ORDER denying 130 Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order regarding 122 Order on Motion to Compel Privilege Log. The order of July 13, 2017 122 is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 2/1/2018. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DMSION
No. 7:16-CV-18-D
FREDRIC N. ESHELMAN,
Plaintiff,

v.
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On July 27, 2017, Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (''Puma" or "defendant" ) appealed Magistrate

Judge Jones's order of July 13,2017 [D.E. 130] and:filedamemorandum.insupport [D.E. 131]. In
the order, Judge Jones held that Fredric N. Eshelman ("Eshelman") need not prepare a privilege log
of documents concerning a proxy contest [D.E. 122]. On August 10, 2017, Eshelman responded in
opposition [D.E. 134]. As explained below, the court affirms the order.
This court can modify or set aside a magistrate judge's order if the order is "clearly
erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R Civ. P. 72(a). As Judge Jones
correctly explained, the Joint Discovery Plan that the parties submitted and that the court approved
dooms Puma's argument. See [D.E. 122] 4-7. Moreover, the requested information is not
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit.
Fed. R Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The order of July 13, 2017 [D.E. 122] is AFFIRMED, and defendant's appeal [D.E. 130] is

DENIED.
SO ORDERED. This _l_ day of February 2018.