Cub USA Services LLC v. Jetta Operating Company Inc

Filing 95

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER overruling 76 Motion to Set Aside filed by Jetta Operating Company Inc. and affirming 74 Magistrate Judge's ORDER re 58 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 1/7/2016) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CUB USA SERVICES, LLC,

§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2508-D
VS.
§
§
JETTA OPERATING COMPANY, INC., §
§
Defendant.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Defendant Jetta Operating Company, Inc. (“Jetta”) objects to the magistrate judge’s
October 22, 2015 order granting the September 23, 2015 motion of plaintiff Cub USA
Services, LLC (“Cub USA”) to compel production of documents (as modified, in part, by the
parties on the record during the hearing on the motion). The court overrules Jetta’s
objections and affirms the magistrate judge’s order.1
Jetta and Cub USA disagree about which party has the burden concerning Cub USA’s
motion to compel. The magistrate judge recognized that “there is a split in this division”
concerning whether the party seeking production or the party opposing it has the burden on
the issues of relevance, over-breadth, burden, and oppression. Hrg. Tr. 4. In fact, in Merrill
v. Waffle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 475 (N.D. Tex. 2005), Judge Lynn held that the magistrate
1

Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written
opinion” adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[]
issued by the court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.”
It has been written, however, primarily for the parties to decide issues presented in this case,
and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.

judge “did not commit an error of law in assigning Defendant the burden of proving, in the
first instance, that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests were irrelevant.” Id. at 477. In Abraham
v. Alpha Chi Omega, 271 F.R.D 556 (N.D. Tex. 2010), Judge Furgeson held that “[t]he
moving party bears the burden of showing that the materials and information sought are
relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. at 559 (citing
Export Worldwide, Ltd. v. Knight, 241 F.R.D. 259, 263 (W.D. Tex. 2006)). The burden
shifts to the party resisting discovery “[o]nce the moving party establishes that the request
is within the scope of permissible discovery.” Id. (citing Spiegelberg Mfg., Inc. v. Hancock,
2007 WL 4258246, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2007) (Kaplan, J.)). The magistrate judge opted
in this case to follow Merrill. Hrg. Tr. 4.
Without suggesting that the court will in a future case adopt Merrill as the controlling
standard, it will follow Merrill in this case. Although decisions of other judges of this court
are not binding as the “law of the district,” the undersigned “invariably gives serious and
respectful consideration to the decisions of other judges of this court on questions of
law—and typically follows them because they are usually correct and because predictability
in such matters is desirable.” SEC v. Cuban, 798 F.Supp.2d 783, 788 (N.D. Tex. 2011)
(Fitzwater, C.J.). Merrill predates Export Worldwide, and Export Worldwide neither cites
Merrill nor makes any effort to explain why it is incorrect regarding the assignment of the
burden.

Additionally, Export Worldwide relies in part on Spiegelberg, and the

undersigned—albeit in the context of a motion for protective order—has declined to follow
Spiegelberg. See Staton Holdings, Inc. v. Russell Athletic, Inc., 2010 WL 1372479, at *2
-2-

(N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2010) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (granting objection and vacating protective order
where magistrate judge relied on his Spiegelberg decision to place burden on party seeking
discovery—and opposing motion for protective order—to show that deposition appeared
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence).2
Because the magistrate judge did not err as a matter of law in placing the burden on
Jetta, the question becomes whether she abused her discretion in any respect. “Except as to
issues of law that are reviewed de novo, district judges do not sit as second-tier
decisionmakers concerning discovery matters referred to the magistrate judge.” Nunn v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2044477, at *4 (N.D. Tex. May 24, 2010)
(Fitzwater, C.J.). “And in matters of discretion—and discovery decisions are usually
quintessential examples of the exercise of discretion—district judges do not substitute their
own judgment for that of the magistrate judge.” Id. “‘[A] district court has broad discretion
in all discovery matters, and such discretion will not be disturbed ordinarily unless there are
unusual circumstances showing a clear abuse.’” Beattie v. Madison Cnty. Sch. Dist., 254
F.3d 595, 606 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Dev., B.V., 213 F.3d
841, 855 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2

It is clear from the reasoning of Staton that its rejection of the Spiegelberg approach
was specifically tied to the review of a magistrate judge order granting a motion for
protective order. See Staton, 2010 WL 1372479, at *2 (quoting In re Terra Int’l, Inc., 134
F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998), for proposition that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)’s requirement of
showing of good cause to support issuance of protective order indicated that burden was on
movant to show necessity for protective order). The court is citing Staton, however, as
further support for the decision to defer to Merrill over Export Worldwide, which relies in
part on Spiegelberg.
-3-

Jetta has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge abused her discretion in granting
Cub USA’s motion to compel production of documents (as modified, in part, by the parties
on the record during the hearing on the motion). Accordingly, the court overrules Jetta’s
objections, affirms the order, and lifts the stay entered on November 10, 2015. Jetta must
produce the responsive documents no later than February 8, 2016.
SO ORDERED.
January 7, 2016.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-