Snyder v. DowDupont, Inc., 18-1266-CFC-SRF. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Delaware
Number: infdco20191202434
Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 25, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER COLM F. CONNOLLY , District Judge . Plaintiff has filed objections (D.I. 83) to the Magistrate Judge's discovery ruling made orally on October 17, 2019 (D.I. 83, Ex. 1). Defendants have responded (D.I. 85). I have reviewed the transcript of the Magistrate Judge's ruling and the parties' papers filed in connection with Plaintiff's objections. Plaintiff sought a protective order to preclude Defendants from serving a subpoena on Plaintiff's current employer. (D.I. 74). Defen
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER COLM F. CONNOLLY , District Judge . Plaintiff has filed objections (D.I. 83) to the Magistrate Judge's discovery ruling made orally on October 17, 2019 (D.I. 83, Ex. 1). Defendants have responded (D.I. 85). I have reviewed the transcript of the Magistrate Judge's ruling and the parties' papers filed in connection with Plaintiff's objections. Plaintiff sought a protective order to preclude Defendants from serving a subpoena on Plaintiff's current employer. (D.I. 74). Defend..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
COLM F. CONNOLLY, District Judge.
Plaintiff has filed objections (D.I. 83) to the Magistrate Judge's discovery ruling made orally on October 17, 2019 (D.I. 83, Ex. 1). Defendants have responded (D.I. 85). I have reviewed the transcript of the Magistrate Judge's ruling and the parties' papers filed in connection with Plaintiff's objections.
Plaintiff sought a protective order to preclude Defendants from serving a subpoena on Plaintiff's current employer. (D.I. 74). Defendants opposed that request, and the Magistrate Judge ruled in Defendants' favor.
The Magistrate Judge had the authority to make the ruling she did under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(a)(A). I review her ruling for clear error. Id.
The Magistrate Judge ruled that Defendants had legitimate reasons to serve the subpoena in question and that Plaintiff did not demonstrate that she would be unfairly prejudiced by the service of the subpoena. The Magistrate Judge explained in appropriate detail the reasons for these conclusions. I agree with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and do not find that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was an abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' objections (D.I. 83) are OVERRULED.
Source: Leagle
