Opinion
Case No. 3:07-mc-27-J-32MCR.
May 20, 2008
ORDER
Under the E-Government Act of 2002, this is a written opinion and therefore is available electronically. However, it has been entered only to decide the motion or matter addressed herein and is not intended for official publication or to serve as precedent.
This case is before the Court on the Respondents' Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Dated April 15, 2008 and Appeal to Federal District Court (Doc. 60), challenging the Magistrate Judge's April 15, 2008 Order (Doc. 59) granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 2). Petitioner filed a response in opposition (Doc. 64). Upon review, the Court holds that the United States Magistrate Judge had the authority to enter an Order, as opposed to a Report and Recommendation, on the motion to compel, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Therefore, this Order will be set aside or modified only if "clearly erroneous or contrary to law," pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See In re Duizendstraal, No. 3:95-mc-150-X, 1997 WL 195443, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 1997) (explaining why procedural non-dispositive nature of discovery requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 confer authority on United States Magistrate Judges to enter Orders subject to review under clearly erroneous standard). The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's April 15, 2008 Order granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 59) is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and it is therefore AFFIRMED. Respondents are ORDERED to produce the information as directed by the United States Magistrate Judge's April 15, 2008 Order (Doc. 59) no later than JUNE 5, 2008. Because of this ruling, Respondents' Motion for Stay Pending District Court Ruling on Objections and Appeal (Doc. 61) is MOOT. Respondents' Motion for Oral Argument (Doc. 62) is DENIED.