Opinion
8:22-cv-1981-TPB-JSS
04-19-2023
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MARCH 17, 2023, ORDER
TOM BARBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' objection (Doc. 64) to United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed's Order dated March 17, 2023 (Doc. 63). Defendants filed a response. (Doc. 72). In her Order, Judge Sneed granted in part, and denied in part, “Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses” (Doc. 46). Judge Sneed conducted an individualized review of the 42 discovery requests that Plaintiffs sought to compel. Plaintiffs object to the rulings on 10 of those 42 requests.
A party may file objections to a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter within fourteen days after service of the order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). When objections are filed, the district court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id. An order is contrary to law if the magistrate judge failed to apply or misapplied the relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules. TemPay, Inc. v. Biltres Staffing of Tampa Bay, LLC, 929 F.Supp.2d 1255, 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citing S.E.C. v. Kramer, 778 F.Supp.2d 1320, 1326-27 (M.D. Fla. 2011)).
After an independent review of the record, the undersigned concurs with Judge Sneed. Judge Sneed's Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Consequently, the objection is overruled, and Judge Sneed's March 17, 2023, Order shall remain the Order of the Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) The objection (Doc. 64) is OVERRULED, and Judge Sneed's March 17, 2023, Order (Doc. 63) shall remain the Order of the Court.
DONE and ORDERED.