NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots
Filing
9
ORDER OVERRULING 7 Objection to Magistrate Judge Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 12/19/17. (sem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NETJETS AVIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.: 2:17-MC-038
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Jolson
NETJETS ASSOCITION OF SHARED
AIRCRAFT PILOTS,
Defendants.
ORDER
On August 15, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Opinion and Order
granting the Motion of NetJets Aviation, Inc. to compel compliance with a subpoena. (Doc. 6).
The parties were advised of their right to object to the Order. This matter is now before the
Court on Defendant’s Objections to the Order. (See Doc. 7). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has filed a Response. (Doc. 8).
Upon timely objection, a district court “must consider timely objections and modify or set
aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).1 The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to the
magistrate judge’s factual findings while legal conclusions are reviewed under the more lenient
“contrary to law” standard. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff’d, 19
F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. 1994). “[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to
1
Defendant argues that the standard of review should be de novo, however, that standard is reserved for dispositive
decisions. This miscellaneous matter involves a discovery dispute and although this matter will be closed following
this Order that does not equate to a dispositive matter as the underlying litigation is still pending in the Southern
District of Florida.
support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Eversole v. Butler County Sheriff’s Office, 2001 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 26894, at *2 (S.D. Ohio August 7, 2001) (sustaining objections to magistrate judge’s
order rejecting claim of attorney-client privilege and work-product) (citation omitted). The
District Court Judge’s review under the “contrary to law” standard is “plenary,” and it ‘“may
overturn any conclusions of law which contradict or ignore applicable precepts of law, as found
in the Constitution, statutes, or case precedent.’” Gandee, 785 F.Supp. at 686 (citations omitted).
It is with these standards in mind that the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s Order.
The background of this miscellaneous matter is set forth in detail in the Magistrate
Judge’s August 15, 2017 Opinion and Order. (See Doc. 6). Plaintiff NetJets Aviation, Inc.
served a subpoena on Defendant NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots (“NJASAP”) to
produce certain documents related to litigation of Ameer Siddiqui v. NetJets Aviation, Inc., Case
No. 1:16-cv-23924, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. NJASAP is not a party to the Siddiqui litigation. Ultimately NJASAP has
not produced the documents pursuant to the subpoena and Plaintiff initiated this action and filed
a Motion to Compel Compliance with the Subpoena. (Doc. 1).
Defendant continues to maintain the same position in response to the original motion to
compel and brings general arguments as to why the Opinion and Order is incorrect. The Court
will address those specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. Defendant challenges
the production of the message board posts arguing that they are irrelevant to and disproportionate
to the Siddiqui litigation. (Doc. 7, Def.’s Objs. at 6). Defendant asserts that the Magistrate
Judge did not make the determination of relevancy. Like the Magistrate Judge, the Court has
2
conducted an in camera review of the documents at issue in this case. The Magistrate Judge
concluded, and the Court agrees, that the documents at issue are relevant and proportional to the
needs of this case. (Doc. 6, Opinion and Order at 5).
Defendant further argues that the Railway Labor Act, Union-Union Member Privilege
and the First Amendment associational privilege all protect against disclosure of the message
board posts. Generally, Defendant argues that producing any information from its members
would have a chilling effect on the associational rights and activities of its members. The Court
has carefully reviewed Defendant’s objections on these issues, but Defendant has failed to
establish how the Magistrate Judge’s decision was contrary to law. The Court finds the
Magistrate Judge’s decision addressed in detail all of the parties’ arguments on the Motion to
Compel and the Court finds it to be very well-reasoned.
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Opinion
and Order are hereby OVERRULED. The Opinion and Order is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
The Clerk shall remove Document 7 from the Court’s pending motions list and close this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?