Opinion
CASE NO. 09-13783.
February 9, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's objection [dkt 37] to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk's order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Compel discovery [dkt 35]. The objection has been fully briefed. The Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the parties' papers such that the decision process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the objection be resolved on the briefs submitted.
Generally, this action involves claims of trademark infringement and false advertising between makers of competing energy drinks, one purporting to provide consumers with 5 hours of energy, and the other purporting to provide consumers with 8 hours of energy. Following a hearing on the matter, the Magistrate issued an order denying Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to produce its product formulas on the basis that such product formulas were not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. The Magistrate also denied Defendant's request to strike several of Plaintiff's general objections to Defendant's discovery requests on the basis that consideration of the matter was a waste of time.
A district court judge "may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). "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. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
Defendant first objects to the Magistrate's order on the basis that, in fairness, Plaintiff should have to disclose its product formulas because Defendant previously provided Plaintiff with its product formulas. However, Defendant's objection does not cite any legal authority demonstrating that the Magistrate's order, which was based on the relevancy of the formulas, was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Similarly, Defendant's objection does not provide the Court with any legal authority demonstrating that the Magistrate's denial of Defendant's request to strike Plaintiff's general objections to Defendant's discovery requests is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Defendant's objection [dkt 37] is DENIED, and Defendant must comply with the Magistrate's order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2011