Opinion
01 Civ. 8095 (HB)
July 29, 2002
OPINION ORDER
Plaintiff Innomed Labs, LLC ("Innomed") appeals pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) a discovery ruling by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis denying Innomed's request for documents relating to defendant's prior distributorship agreement with third-party Ciba Consumer Pharmaceuticals ("Ciba"). For the following reasons, Magistrate Judge Ellis' order is affirmed.
I. BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with the discussion of the background facts as set forth in Innomed Labs. LLC., v. Alza Corp. and Johnson Johnson, 01 Civ.8095, 2002 WL 1628943 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2002). On June 14, 2002, I referred all discovery disputes to Judge Ellis.
In its Second Request for Production of Documents, Innomed seeks a broad array of documents ("Ciba documents") relating to defendant Alza Corp.'s ("Aiza") supply of the Efidac/24 products to Ciba, a company that had an exclusive distributorship arrangement with Alza from 1992-1997 prior to Innomed. Innomed argues that the documents are relevant to its Robinson-Patman antitrust claim, in addition to its claims for fraud, breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Aiza objects to the production of the Ciba documents as irrelevant.
During a conference with the parties on July 10, 2002, Judge Ellis issued an oral ruling denying mnnomed's request for the Ciba documents. Innomed appeals that ruling.
II. DISCUSSION
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A), "a judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except for certain enumerated dispositive motions." See Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, "matters concerning discovery are considered non-dispositive," and a magistrate's orders regarding non-dispositive pretrial matters are reviewed under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard. 11. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a)).
In reviewing Judge Ellis' ruling I am mindful that "reversal is appropriate only if it is determined that he abused his discretion." See Conway v. Icahn, 16 F.3d 504, 510 (2d Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court has recognized that, "[a] finding is "clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). In this regard, "[t]he party seeking to overturn a magistrate judge's decision carries a heavy burden." Schaffer v. CC Investments, 205 F.R.D. 158, 159-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Morrero, J.) (affirming Magistrate Judge Pitman's ruling that discovery sought by plaintiff was irrelevant because in light of the "doubtful relevance of the requested discovery, the Court determines that Magistrate Judge Pitman's Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.").
Innomed argues that de novo review of Judge Ellis' ruling is warranted here. I find no authority to support this assertion, and Innomed fails to cite any.
From my review of the parties' letters, including the plaintiffs document request, the relevance of the Ciba documents to any aspect of this lawsuit is at best doubtful. I have no reason to believe that Judge Ellis was unfamiliar with all the relevant facts underlying his ruling and I find that he acted well within his considerable discretion. Judge Ellis' order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and is therefore affirmed.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Ellis' order is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.