Clay v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company
Filing
367
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON REASONABLE EXPENSES. This Court AFFIRMS the magistrate judge's order on reasonable expenses 334 , and OVERRULES the plaintiffs objections 340 . Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 9/11/2013. (copy to counsel of record via CM/ECF) (nmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
TONY B. CLAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:12CV92
(STAMP)
CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL
COMPANY, LLC,
a foreign limited liability
company and subsidiary of
Consol Energy, Inc.,
McELROY COAL COMPANY,
a foreign corporation and
subsidiary of Consol Energy, Inc.
and CONSOL ENERGY, INC.,
a foreign corporation,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER ON REASONABLE EXPENSES
I. Background
The
above-styled
civil
action
involves
claims
of
racial
discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, a claim for breach
of the plaintiff’s employment agreement, and a claim for violation
of West Virginia’s Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Numerous
discovery motions have been filed in this action and motions for
reasonable expenses have also been filed in relation to the
discovery motions.
On July 23, 2013, this Court entered an order
affirming United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert’s order
which granted in part plaintiff’s request for reasonable expenses
in relation to certain motions to compel and motions for protective
orders.
This
Court,
however,
remanded
the
motions
to
the
magistrate
judge
for
further
consideration
and
possible
recalculation of the fees and expenses to be awarded.
The magistrate judge then entered an order recalculating the
reasonable expenses.
The magistrate judge informed the parties
that they may object to his order within 14 days from the date of
the order being filed. The plaintiff then filed objections arguing
that
the
magistrate
judge’s
mathematical
calculation
of
the
expenses to be awarded for the motion to compel the mine inspection
was incorrect.
II.
Applicable Law
As to nondispositive pretrial matters, a magistrate judge’s
ruling may be reversed only on a finding that the order is “clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there
is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.”
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,
333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
In light of the broad discretion given
to a magistrate judge in the resolution of nondispositive discovery
disputes, the court should only overrule a magistrate judge’s
determination if this discretion is abused.
Detection Sys., Inc.
v. Pittway Corp., 96 F.R.D. 152, 154 (W.D. N.Y. 1982).
2
III.
Discussion
The magistrate judge first found that in relation to the
plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses, the plaintiff was
at best 50% successful.
The magistrate judge, however, found that
only a 25% reduction in the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in
this motion to compel was appropriate because this would deter
future violations similar to the ones at issue.
The plaintiff had
submitted $8,202.50 in expenses related to this motion, thus, the
magistrate judge reduced this amount by 25% and awarded the
plaintiff a total of $6,151.87.
The plaintiff does not object to
this calculation.
As to the plaintiff’s motion to compel the mine inspection,
the magistrate judge found that the plaintiff’s level of success
was 33%.
Thus, it reduced the plaintiff’s submitted expenses for
this motion by 67%, which resulted in an award of $3,273.60.
The
plaintiff objects to this calculation arguing that the magistrate
judge should have reduced the total expenses by only 33%, as the
magistrate judge stated in regards to the motion to compel the mine
inspection that “[a] 33% reduction based upon Plaintiff’s partial
success brings the figure down to three thousand two hundred
seventy three dollars and sixty cents ($3,273.60).”
The plaintiff
argues that a 33% reduction would have amounted to an award of
$6,646.40 in expenses instead of an award of $3,273.60.
3
This Court finds, however, that the above quoted statement was
merely a typographical error on the part of the magistrate judge.
It is clear in the paragraphs leading up to the above-quoted
sentence that the magistrate judge found that plaintiff was only
33% successful in regards to this motion, and therefore a 67%
reduction in expenses was appropriate.
In fact, in a preceding
paragraph, the magistrate judge states that “Plaintiff shall only
recover 33% of the expenses submitted for prosecution of the motion
to compel.”
plaintiff’s
The awarded expenses of $3,273.60 is 33% of the
submitted
expenses,
which
totaled
$9,920.00.
Therefore, this Court finds no clear error in the magistrate
judge’s award for the motion to compel the mine inspection.
IV.
For
the
reasons
Conclusion
stated
above,
this
Court
AFFIRMS
the
magistrate judge’s order on reasonable expenses (ECF No. 334), and
OVERRULES the plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 340).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
DATED:
September 11, 2013
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?