Wagner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Full title: JERRY WAGNER, as Guardian of LESLIE CARLE STEWART, a legally incapacitated…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Aug 29, 2011

Case No. 10-11733 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 10-11733

08-29-2011

JERRY WAGNER, as Guardian of LESLIE CARLE STEWART, a legally incapacitated person Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation Defendant.

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

HONORABLE

SENIOR UNITED STATES

DISTRICT JUDGE

HONORABLE PAUL J. KOMIVES

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION [39] TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

ORDER [34] GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL [17] AND

TERMINATING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY [40]

Now before the Court is 1) Plaintiff's Objection [39] to the Magistrate Judge's Order [34] granting Defendant's Motion to Compel [17] regarding the production of "any notes made by any attendant care provider that document attendant care services provided" to Plaintiff and 2) Plaintiff's Motion to Stay [40] the Magistrate Judge Order in question.

The standard of review set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) governs this nondispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Pursuant to that rule, "The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the [Magistrate Judge's] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Id.

The Court has reviewed the entire record and sees no basis for sustaining Plaintiff's objection. Plaintiff has failed to cite any authority to establish that the Magistrate Judge's finding was clearly erroneous. The information sought by Defendant is fact information, as determined by the Magistrate Judge, which is discoverable. Furthermore, the Order allows for redaction of any information that may be characterized as confidential communications made for the purpose of securing legal advice. Order [34], at 4.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection [39] is OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay [40] is TERMINATED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to counsel of record on August 29, 2011 by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Michael Williams

Relief Case Manager for the

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow