Opinion
Case No. 03-4140-JAR
April 26, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION
This comes before the Court on the plaintiffs' objection(Doc. 39) to the Magistrate Judge's April 6, 2004 Order (Doc. 38) denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct discovery and supplement the administrative record to the extent that it seeks leave to conduct discovery before the merits of this judicial review proceeding are briefed by the parties and decided by the court. With respect to a magistrate judge's order relating to nondispositive pretrial matters such as this one, the district court does not conduct a de novo review; rather, the court applies a more deferential standard by which the moving party must show that the magistrate judge's order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) allows a party to provide specific, written objections to the magistrate judge's order. The rule states that "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."
First Union Mortgage Corp. v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992, 995 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1461-62 (10th Cir. 1988); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a)).
Plaintiffs object to Judge O'Hara's conclusion that they did not carry their burden to show that discovery should be permitted in this judicial review proceeding. But, having reviewed Judge O'Hara's Order, as well as the parties' submissions, the Court finds that Judge O'Hara's decision is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. On the contrary, his Order correctly states the standards and narrow exceptions allowing a reviewing court to consider evidence outside of the administrative record and to grant additional discovery in the judicial proceeding to supplement or augment the administrative record. Plaintiffs have not borne their burden of showing the factors favoring the extraordinary relief they seek, discovery in this action for judicial review of an administrative decision. For all of the reasons addressed in Judge O'Hara's well reasoned opinion, this court overrules and denies plaintiffs' motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. 39) is OVERRULED AND DENIED.