REMOTE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. DATA INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., 10-1678 (MJD/JSM). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20121001366
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2012
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court on Defendant's appeal of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron's July 31, 2012 Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Take Deposition Out of Time [Docket No. 61], denying Defendant's Motion to Extend Expert Discovery [Docket No. 65], and granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 71]. The Court has carefully considered the entire record in this matter and conclu
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court on Defendant's appeal of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron's July 31, 2012 Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Take Deposition Out of Time [Docket No. 61], denying Defendant's Motion to Extend Expert Discovery [Docket No. 65], and granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 71]. The Court has carefully considered the entire record in this matter and conclud..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court on Defendant's appeal of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron's July 31, 2012 Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Take Deposition Out of Time [Docket No. 61], denying Defendant's Motion to Extend Expert Discovery [Docket No. 65], and granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 71]. The Court has carefully considered the entire record in this matter and concludes that oral argument is unnecessary.
This Court will reverse a Magistrate Judge's order on a nondispositive issue only if that order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(a). This Court has reviewed the submissions and the record in this case and concludes that Magistrate Judge Mayeron's July 31, 2012 Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the July 31 Order is affirmed.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings, herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron's July 31, 2012 Order [Docket No. 136] is AFFIRMED.
2. Defendant's objections and appeal [Docket No. 145] are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
