Opinion
Miscellaneous Action No. 01-3791, Section "J" (1)
March 12, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Otto Candies' Objection to Magistrate's Discovery Order (Rec. Doc. 21). Upon reviewing the discovery order, the parties' memoranda, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Otto Candies' objections should be overruled and the Magistrate Judge's Order sustained.
Background
This matter arises out of a civil action pending in federal court in Brownsville, Texas, wherein Seabulk Towing is suing a Mexican company, Oceanografia, and its officer, Amado Osuna, alleging breach of contract. In August 2001, Seabulk sought and obtained permission from the Texas district court to serve third-party discovery on Otto Candies, one of Seabulk's competitors in the offshore supply boat business, whom Seabulk learned was closely related to Oceanografia.
Seabulk caused a subpoena duces tecum to be issued by this Court on September 10, 2001, which was served on Otto Candies on September 19, 2001. In its discovery request, Seabulk sought to obtain information relating to the assets of Oceanografia in the United States, assets removed from the United States, debts of Oceanografia, financial statements, and the names of financial institutions and location of various equipment. On September 24, 2001, counsel for Otto Candies, who is also counsel for Oceanografia in the Texas action, faxed a letter to counsel for Seabulk, stating that Otto Candies regarded the subpoena as deficient, because it was premature, overburdensome, and did not allow enough time for response. There was no other response by Otto Candies to the subpoena until November 2, 2001, when it objected on the grounds of prematurity, burden, and confidentiality.
Otto Candies objected on the grounds of prematurity, because issue had not yet been joined at that time.
The Magistrate Judge notes that there is evidence that Seabulk attempted to cooperate with Otto Candies to resolve any problems with the scope of the subpoena and requested specific objections after the September 24, 2001, letter and before it received the November 2, 2001, objections.
Thereafter, on December 18, 2001, Seabulk filed a motion to compel production and argued that Otto Candies had waived all of its objections to the subpoena. Otto Candies opposed the motion, asserting that it timely objected, the subpoena sought proprietary information, the requested information was irrelevant, the document was premature, production of the documents would impose an undue burden on it, and this Court should defer to the Texas Court to establish the scope of discovery.
As to the last objection, Magistrate Judge Shushan points out that she held a telephone conference in order to determine if the parties agreed that the issues raised in the motion to compel should be resolved in the Texas action. The parties did not, so Magistrate Judge Shushan resolved the issues.
Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan issued an order granting in part and denying in part Seabulk's motion to compel on February 4, 2002. Magistrate Judge Shushan concluded that Otto Candies timely objected to the subpoena on the grounds of prematurity, inadequate time to respond, and burden, in its September 24, 2001, letter to Seabulk. However, citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2)(B), Magistrate Judge Shushan concluded that Otto Candies waived its objection that the subpoena sought proprietary information, as that objection was not made until more than six weeks after service of the subpoena was served.
Although, she noted that Otto Candies' objections as to prematurity and inadequate time to respond are now moot given that issue has been joined and more than four months have passed since the subpoena was served.
Rule 45(c)(2)(B) provides:
[A] person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises.
Next, Magistrate Judge Shushan addressed Otto Candies' objection to the burden of responding as to each specific actual request by Seabulk. She concluded that categories 1, 2 and 5-10 of the subpoena were not unduly burdensome, primarily because the information sought in those requests were restricted by specific dates and she limited the necessary production by Otto Candies to those dates. However, Magistrate Judge Shushan found that Otto Candies should not be required to make any response to categories 3, 4, and 11 of the subpoena, because the scope of those requests were too broad and/or could result in production of voluminous documents that would not be relevant to the underlying suit.
Additionally, Magistrate Judge Shushan noted that while Otto Candies did not timely object to the discovery request on the issue of relevancy, its relevancy objection was subsumed in the question of burden.
Otto Candies then filed its objection to Magistrate Judge Shushan's order, which is presently before the Court.
Discussion
This court reviews discovery rulings by a magistrate judge under the "clearly erroneous" standard as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A): "A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." In Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385-86 (5th Cir. 1995), the Fifth Circuit confirmed that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) specifically requires the district court to apply a "clearly erroneous" standard when reviewing a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive, pretrial motion such as a discovery motion.
Moreover, Otto Candies' Objections to Magistrate Judge Shushan's order were filed pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in pertinent part:
Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's order, a party may serve and file objections to the order. . . . The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
(Emphasis added). Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a), Magistrate Judge Shushan's order should be upheld by this Court unless it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law."
Upon reviewing the order in this case, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge applied the appropriate legal standards to the issues raised in the motion to compel and opposition and did not make any clear error in her rulings. In its objection to this Court, Otto Candies only specifically takes issue with Magistrate Judge Shushan's findings that discovery against it should be allowed in part because: (1) the close business relationship between Candies and Oceanografia, and (2) Seabulk should not be required to wait until discovery is concluded as to Oceanografia before seeking production from Otto Candies in light of the scheduling order in the Texas case. The Court does not find that Otto Candies has demonstrated that Magistrate Judge Shushan was clearly wrong in these determinations, nor any of her other rulings.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Otto Candies' Objections to Magistrate's Discovery Order are OVERRULED. Withing ten (10) working days of the entry of this order, Otto Candies is ordered to comply with the Magistrate Judge's discovery order.