Aircraft Fueling Systems, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co.
Filing
203
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; denying 184 Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order (hbo, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AIRCRAFT FUELING SYSTEMS, INC.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
Defendant.
Case No. 08-CV-414-GKF-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Partial Objection to Opinion and Order of United States
Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Limited Resumption of Depositions. [Dkt. ##173,
184].
In his order on plaintiff Aircraft Fueling Systems, Inc.’s (“AFS”) discovery motion [Dkt.
#141], Magistrate Judge Frank M. McCarthy granted plaintiff leave to re-depose defendant
Southwest Airline Co. (“Southwest”) witnesses, Thomas McCartin and Robert Myrben, on the
contents of documents Southwest produced after the discovery deadline. The Magistrate Judge
denied plaintiff’s request for leave to depose the witnesses on documents produced after the
witnesses’ first depositions (but before discovery cutoff) and on defendant’s document retention
policies and systems. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s order to the extent it denied the
motion.
The district court reviews a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive motion under a
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
Under the clearly erroneous standard, “the reviewing court [must] affirm unless it ‘on the entire
1
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Ocelot
Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) quoting United States v. U.S.
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). “Because a magistrate is afforded broad discretion in
the resolution of no-dispositive discovery disputes, the court will overrule the magistrate’s
determination only if this discretion is abused.” A/R Roofing, L.L.C. v. Certainteed Corp., 2006
WL 349015, at *3 (D.Kan. Nov. 30, 2006).
AFS deposed McCartin and Myrben on July 21, 2009. [Dkt. #184 at 1]. Subsequently,
Southwest produced approximately 1,560 pages of documents, with productions on November 2,
2009, November 10, 2009, and February 18, 2011. [Dkt. #193 at 6]. It served its First Amended
Initial Disclosures in October 2010 and its Second Amended Initial Disclosures on April 29,
2011. [Id. at 6].
The Magistrate Judge was “not convinced that the documents produced after the
discovery deadline do not contain some new relevant information.” [Dkt. #173 at 1]. Therefore,
he resolved the issue in favor of AFS. [Id.]. However, he found the request for leave to redepose witnesses on documents produced after their depositions but before discovery cutoff, and
on defendant’s document retention policies, was simply an effort “to reopen discovery which the
Court has previously denied.” [Id. at 2].
The court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s decision. Plaintiff had ample opportunity
to re-depose the witnesses on documents produced subsequent to their depositions but before the
discovery deadline. Similarly, plaintiff had the opportunity to conduct discovery document
retention policies, but failed to do so by discovery cutoff.
Plaintiff’s Partial Objection to Order of United States Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Limited Resumption of Depositions [Dkt. #184] is denied.
2
ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2011.
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?