Summary
requiring a company responding to a discovery request to conduct a reasonable investigation to fully respond to interrogatories and document requests
Summary of this case from Steady State Imaging, LLC v. Gen. Elec. Co.Opinion
Civil No. 05-756(MJD/AJB).
September 18, 2006
ORDER
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon Defendant's objections to the Order and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated July 21, 2006 in which Plaintiff's Motions for Sanctions was granted. Defendant asserts that the Order and Recommendation of Magistrate Boylan are based on a number of erroneous findings. Defendant also objects to the recommended attorney fee and quantification procedures on the basis that it conflicts with controlling precedent of the United States Supreme Court.
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); Local Rule 72.2(a). Based on a review of the record and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Order and Recommendations are neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order and Recommendation dated July 21, 2006 is AFFIRMED.