BROYLES v. CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., 10-854-JJB-CBW. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20160519c95
Visitors: 2
Filed: May 18, 2016
Latest Update: May 18, 2016
Summary: RULING ON APPEAL JAMES J. BRADY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on appeal (Docs. 532) taken by defendants, Stifel Financial Corporation, Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Stone & Youngberg, LLC, and Anthony Guaimano (collectively, the "S&Y Parties"), from the ruling of the magistrate judge issued on April 25, 2016. The matter has been briefed and there is no need for oral argument. It is well established that magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in resolving discovery d
Summary: RULING ON APPEAL JAMES J. BRADY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on appeal (Docs. 532) taken by defendants, Stifel Financial Corporation, Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Stone & Youngberg, LLC, and Anthony Guaimano (collectively, the "S&Y Parties"), from the ruling of the magistrate judge issued on April 25, 2016. The matter has been briefed and there is no need for oral argument. It is well established that magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in resolving discovery di..
More
RULING ON APPEAL
JAMES J. BRADY, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on appeal (Docs. 532) taken by defendants, Stifel Financial Corporation, Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Stone & Youngberg, LLC, and Anthony Guaimano (collectively, the "S&Y Parties"), from the ruling of the magistrate judge issued on April 25, 2016. The matter has been briefed and there is no need for oral argument.
It is well established that magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes. Merritt v. Int'l Bro. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir. 1981). Rulings on discovery matters will be overturned only when found to be clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. This appeal (Doc. 532) involves whether Dr. Youngblood's expert report satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and whether it was clear error for the magistrate judge to deny a motion for leave to file a reply brief. After carefully reviewing this matter, the Court finds no error of law or abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the ruling of the magistrate judge dated April 25, 2016 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
