Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-8446, SECTION: J(1).
January 21, 2009
ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Review the Magistrate Judge's Order (Rec. Doc. 200) of intervenors Regions Bank and William Carroll ("Regions"), seeking this Court's review of the Magistrate Judge's Order (Rec. Doc. 186) granting in part and denying in part Defendant Carter Sons' Motion for Leave of Court to Obtain the Video Trial Deposition of William Carroll Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A) (Rec. Doc. 167) and denying Regions' Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of Video Deposition and Motion for Protective Order (Rec. Doc. 174).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, this Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's decision on these pre-trial discovery matters under a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard. See 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (2008). As such, the Fifth Circuit has stated that the statute 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. See Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385-86 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus, for Regions to prevail, "it must show not that the Magistrate could have exercised her discretion" by denying Carter Sons' motion for leave and granting Regions' motion to quash, "but rather that [it] is entitled to the relief [it] seeks as a matter of law." Bergquist v. FyBX Corp., 2003 WL 21699574, *1 (E.D. La. 2003).
Having reviewed the motion, the memoranda of counsel, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Regions' Motion to Review the Magistrate Judge's Order (Rec. Doc. 200) is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the video trial deposition of William Carroll pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall take place as provided in the Magistrate Judge's Order of December 22, 2008 (Rec. Doc. 186).