Bank of America, N.A. v. Old Republic Insurance Company

Filing 260

ORDER affirming Magistrate's Ruling on Motions to compel and for protective order re 255 Objection. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 7/23/13. (bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTHCAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10CV553

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Vs.
)
)
OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Old Republic’s Objection to the
Magistrate’s Ruling on Motions to Compel and Motion for a Protective Order. Old
Republic requests the Court’s reconsideration of the Magistrate’s Memorandum and
Order entered on April 16, 2013 denying Old Republic’s Motions to Compel and granting
Bank of America’s Motion for a Protective Order.
Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must
determine whether the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
An order is “contrary to law” only if a magistrate judge “failed to apply or misapplied
statutes, case law, or procedural rules.” High Voltage Bevs. LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No.
3:08-CV-367, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63308, *5-6 (W.D.N.C., June 8, 2010). Moreover,
an order is “clearly erroneous” only if in making a factual finding “the reviewing court . .
. is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id.,
citing Walton v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 160, 173-74 (4th Cir. 2006).
The Court has reviewed the magistrate’s order, the Defendant’s objections thereto
as well as the Plaintiff’s response. The Court concludes that the magistrate’s order is
correct and in accordance with law and will therefore be affirmed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate’s Order of April 16, 2013 is
hereby AFFIRMED.
Signed: July 23, 2013