Martin et al v. Schroeder

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Overruling 28 Defendant's Objection to 27 Magistrate Judge's Ruling. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 10/17/17. (dla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
SCOTT W. MARTIN and ROBYN LYNN
MARTIN,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S
OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S RULING

Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRISTOPHER SCHROEDER,

Case No. 2:16-CV-1285

Defendant.

District Judge Jill N. Parrish

On August 1, 2017, Defendant moved the Court to compel Plaintiffs’ criminal counsel in
the underlying criminal prosecution to produce their files (ECF No. 25). Magistrate Judge Pead
denied that motion in a ruling and order dated August 25, 2017 (ECF No. 27). Now before the
Court is Defendant’s objection to that ruling and order (ECF No. 28).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) requires the district judge in the case to “consider
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law.” The Court has considered the record, Judge Pead’s ruling and order, and
Defendant’s objection. No part of Judge Pead’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, the Court will not alter or set aside any part of the order.
SO ORDERED October 17, 2017
BY THE COURT

______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States District Court Judge

1