Alpharma, Inc. v. Pennfield Oil Co.

Full title: ALPHARMA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. PENNFIELD OIL CO.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Nebraska

Date published: Jun 18, 2008

8:03CV401 (D. Neb. Jun. 18, 2008)

Opinion

8:03CV401.

June 18, 2008

ORDER

JOSEPH BATAILLON, District Judge

This matter is before the court on PennField Oil Co.'s appeal, Filing No. 269, of the order of the magistrate judge, Filing No. 268, denying PennField's motion for leave to issue subpoena duces tecum, Filing No. 242, granting Alpharma's motion for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery, Filing No. 256, and denying PennField's motion for protective order, Filing No. 266.

On review of a decision of the magistrate judge on a pretrial matter, the district court may modify or set aside any part of the magistrate judge's order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1986). See also Bialas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 59 F.3d 759, 764 (8th Cir. 1995) (noting "a magistrate is afforded broad discretion in the resolution of nondispositive discovery disputes"). The court has reviewed the parties' submissions to the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge found that the discovery sought was not relevant to issues remaining in the litigation. This court agrees. The magistrate judge's finding comports with this court's earlier ruling on PennField's motion to amend. See Filing No. 234. PennField has not shown that the magistrate judge's findings are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The order of the magistrate judge (Filing No. 268) is affirmed;

2. Defendant's appeal (Filing No. 269) of the order of the magistrate judge is dismissed.