ORDER

DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("Defendant") appeal (Doc. No. 114) of Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's May 31, 2012 informal discovery order (Doc. No. 113) insofar as the Magistrate denied Defendant's request for discovery related to ERISA Plaintiffs' participation in Defendant's and other securities lending programs. Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendant's appeal on June 27, 2012. (Doc. No. 127.)

The Court must modify or set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a). This is an "extremely deferential standard." Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). "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." Chakales v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Having reviewed the record and the submissions of counsel, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Graham's Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Defendant argues that documents related to the ERISA Plaintiffs' participation in Defendant's and other securities lending programs are relevant to Plaintiffs' ERISA fiduciary duty claim and are thus discoverable. (Doc. No. 114 at 6-14.) Defendant contends that such information is relevant to causation as well as the materiality of any non-disclosures or misrepresentations made by Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiffs contend, however, that, given the cumulative nature of materials sought by Defendant, the Magistrate's ruling reasonably limited the scope of discovery. (Doc. No. 127 at 8-13.) Plaintiffs further note that Defendant is already in possession of any information related to securities lending programs that could be located from Plaintiffs' files. (Id. at 9-11.)

In light of the foregoing, and the records and proceedings herein, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the discovery ruling is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant's appeal and affirms Magistrate Judge Graham's May 31, 2012 Order in all respects.1

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's May 31, 2012 Order (Doc. No. [113]) is AFFIRMED.