United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
C. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
August 15, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an
Opinion and Order granting the Motion of NetJets Aviation,
Inc. to compel compliance with a subpoena. (Doc. 6). The
parties were advised of their right to object to the Order.
This matter is now before the Court on Defendant's
Objections to the Order. (See Doc. 7). See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a Response.
timely objection, a district court “must consider
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The
“clearly erroneous” standard applies to the
magistrate judge's factual findings while legal
conclusions are reviewed under the more lenient
“contrary to law” standard. Gandee v.
Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992),
aff'd, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. 1994). “[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.” Eversole v. Butler
County Sheriff's Office, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
26894, at *2 (S.D. Ohio August 7, 2001) (sustaining
objections to magistrate judge's order rejecting claim of
attorney-client privilege and work-product) (citation
omitted). The District Court Judge's review under the
“contrary to law” standard is “plenary,
” and it ‘“may overturn any conclusions of
law which contradict or ignore applicable precepts of law, as
found in the Constitution, statutes, or case
precedent.'” Gandee, 785 F.Supp. at 686
(citations omitted). It is with these standards in mind that
the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's Order.
background of this miscellaneous matter is set forth in
detail in the Magistrate Judge's August 15, 2017 Opinion
and Order. (See Doc. 6). Plaintiff NetJets Aviation,
Inc. served a subpoena on Defendant NetJets Association of
Shared Aircraft Pilots (“NJASAP”) to produce
certain documents related to litigation of Ameer Siddiqui
v. NetJets Aviation, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-23924,
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. NJASAP is not a party to the
Siddiqui litigation. Ultimately NJASAP has not
produced the documents pursuant to the subpoena and Plaintiff
initiated this action and filed a Motion to Compel Compliance
with the Subpoena. (Doc. 1).
continues to maintain the same position in response to the
original motion to compel and brings general arguments as to
why the Opinion and Order is incorrect. The Court will
address those specific objections to the Magistrate
Judge's reasoning. Defendant challenges the production of
the message board posts arguing that they are irrelevant to
and disproportionate to the Siddiqui litigation.
(Doc. 7, Def.'s Objs. at 6). Defendant asserts that the
Magistrate Judge did not make the determination of relevancy.
Like the Magistrate Judge, the Court has conducted an in
camera review of the documents at issue in this case.
The Magistrate Judge concluded, and the Court agrees, that
the documents at issue are relevant and proportional to the
needs of this case. (Doc. 6, Opinion and Order at 5).
further argues that the Railway Labor Act, Union-Union Member
Privilege and the First Amendment associational privilege all
protect against disclosure of the message board posts.
Generally, Defendant argues that producing any information
from its members would have a chilling effect on the
associational rights and activities of its members. The Court
has carefully reviewed Defendant's objections on these
issues, but Defendant has failed to establish how the
Magistrate Judge's decision was contrary to law. The
Court finds the Magistrate Judge's decision addressed in
detail all of the parties' arguments on the Motion to
Compel and the Court finds it to be very well-reasoned.
reasons stated above, Defendants' Objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Opinion and Order are hereby
OVERRULED. The Opinion and Order is
ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Clerk shall remove Document 7 from the Court's pending
motions list and close this case.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Defendant argues that the standard of
review should be de novo, however, that standard is reserved
for dispositive decisions. This miscellaneous matter involves
a discovery dispute and although this matter will be closed
following this Order that does not equate to a dispositive
matter as the ...