Filed: Apr. 25, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LAURIE SMITH CAMP, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Sunset's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order and Memorandum Regarding Sunset's Motion to Compel and Request for Oral Argument (Filing No. 223). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 214), the briefs and indexes of evidence submitted by the parties before the entry of that Memorandum and Order (Filing Nos. 176, 177, 178, 185, 186, 188, 19
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LAURIE SMITH CAMP, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Sunset's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order and Memorandum Regarding Sunset's Motion to Compel and Request for Oral Argument (Filing No. 223). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 214), the briefs and indexes of evidence submitted by the parties before the entry of that Memorandum and Order (Filing Nos. 176, 177, 178, 185, 186, 188, 194..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LAURIE SMITH CAMP, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Sunset's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order and Memorandum Regarding Sunset's Motion to Compel and Request for Oral Argument (Filing No. 223). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 214), the briefs and indexes of evidence submitted by the parties before the entry of that Memorandum and Order (Filing Nos. 176, 177, 178, 185, 186, 188, 194, 195), and the arguments in support of and in opposition to the pending Objections (Filing Nos. 223, 231).
In an appeal from a magistrate judge's order on a pretrial matter contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district court may set aside any part of the magistrate judge's order shown to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Gossett's order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Memorandum and Order was thorough, thoughtful, well-reasoned, and supported by applicable law. Accordingly, it will be affirmed.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Defendant Sunset Financial Services, Inc.'s Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 223) are overruled; and
2. The Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 214) is affirmed.
