United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
JUSTIN E. CUEVAS, Plaintiff
CROSBY DREDGING, LLC, Defendant
ORDER AND REASONS
MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are Objections to the Order and Reasons entered by the
United States Magistrate Judge on May 9, 2019, filed by
Defendant Crosby Dredging, LLC (“Crosby
Dredging”). Crosby Dredging also moves to vacate the
order or, in the alternative, to vacate the award of
attorneys' fees. The motion and objections are
opposed. For the following reasons, the Court
OVERRULES Crosby Dredging's objections
and DENIES its motion to vacate.
April 16, 2019, Plaintiff Justin E. Cuevas filed a motion to
compel discovery, which was referred to the Magistrate Judge
and set for submission on April 16, 2019. At a telephone
status conference with the Court on May 8, 2019, the Court
ordered the parties to “meet to discuss resolution of
the remaining issues” in the motion to compel by May
10, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge
issued an Order and Reasons granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiff's motion to compel and awarding Plaintiff
attorneys' fees and costs.
23, 2019, Crosby Dredging filed the instant motion and
objections.Counsel for Crosby Dredging argues the
Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons contravenes this
Court's order of May 8, 2019. Crosby Dredging also argues
“Plaintiff's Motion was not so well-founded or
clear cut as to entitle him to attorneys'
fees.” It requests that this Court set aside
the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons or, in the
alternative, vacate or limit the award of attorneys'
fees. Plaintiff opposes.
72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim
or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and
decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the
required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written
order stating the decision. A party may serve and file
objections to the order within 14 days after being served
with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the
order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case
must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any
part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to
objections in this case were timely. This Court reviews the
Magistrate Judge's ruling to determine if it is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
The Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons of May 9, 2019
did not contravene this Court's order of
May 8, 2019.
Dredging argues the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons
contravened this Court's order during the telephone
status conference on May 8, 2019. During the conference,
the Court ordered the parties to “meet to discuss
resolution of the remaining issues” in the motion to
compel by May 10, 2019. The Magistrate Judge issued her Order
and Reasons on May 9, 2019. Crosby Dredging represents the
parties conferred on May 10, 2019,  after the Magistrate
Judge issued her ruling on the motion to compel. Crosby
Dredging represents that, following that conference, it
provided Plaintiff with all the information it was required
to provide pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's
Dredging cites no authority for the proposition that this
Court's ordering the parties to attempt to resolve
discovery issues renders erroneous the Magistrate Judge's
ruling. Crosby Dredging also cites no authority for the
proposition that its compliance with the Magistrate
Judge's ruling renders her ruling erroneous. The Court
has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons and
finds it does not contradict or contravene this Court's
order of May 8, 2019. The Court overrules Crosby
Dredging's objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order
and Reasons on this basis and denies its motion to vacate the
Order and Reasons.
The Magistrate Judge's award of attorneys' fees was
not clearly erroneous or contrary to
instant motion, Crosby Dredging does not object to any of the
Magistrate Judge's resolution of the discovery
disputes. Crosby Dredging contests only the
Magistrate Judge's awarding Plaintiff attorneys'
fees. Crosby Dredging argues the Magistrate
Judge denied Plaintiff's motion to compel with respect to
four of the eleven issues in dispute and required only a
verification for five of the ...