ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Defendant SuperValu, Inc.'s ("SuperValu") Objections [Docket No. 845] to Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung's August 3, 2017 Omnibus Case Management & Fourth Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order ("Scheduling Order") [Docket No. 838]. SuperValu argues that the Scheduling Order is erroneous because it permits Plaintiffs JFM Market, Inc., and MJF Market, Inc. (collectively, "Village Market") to pursue certification of a New England class even though the Court denied certification of a New England class in 2012 and ruled in August 2015 that Village Market may not relitigate the issue of certification for a New England class. For the reasons set forth below, the Objections are overruled and the Scheduling Order is affirmed.
A magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive pretrial matter will not be set aside unless it is "clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." 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."
SuperValu argues that the Scheduling Order is contrary to law because Village Market has not demonstrated materially changed circumstances that warrant revisiting this Court's 2012 denial of certification for a New England class.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C) provides: "An order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment." This rule "empowers district courts to alter or amend class-certification orders based on circumstances developing as the case unfolds."
SuperValu argues that no previously unavailable evidence exists to justify reopening the class determination. Village Market disagrees, contending that new evidence discovered after the denial of class certification, including changed testimony from a C&S executive, establishes that C&S's pricing scheme in New England was formulaic, rather than individualized. Although SuperValu argues that it will be prejudiced by having to relitigate the issue of certification of a New England class, any such prejudice is outweighed by the prejudice Village Market would suffer if it were foreclosed from arguing that developing circumstances, including newly discovered evidence, are sufficiently compelling to warrant amending the Class Certification Order under Rule 23(c)(1)(C).
Based on these and other developments which have unfolded in this case since the 2012 denial of certification of a New England class and the August 2015 Order, Judge Leung's decision to permit Village Market to move for reconsideration of class certification under Rule 23(c)(1)(C) is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, SuperValu's Objections are overruled.
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein,