Opinion
Civil No. 02-1328 (JRT/FLN).
April 20, 2005
Robert I. Reardon, Jr. and Robert T. Rimmer, REARDON LAW FIRM, New London, CT, for plaintiffs.
Albert J. Dahm and Michael S. Elvin, DAHM ELVIN, Ft. Wayne, IN; and Kim M. Schmid, BOWMAN BROOKE, Minneapolis, MN, for defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff George David Johnson is suing defendant Zimmer, Inc. ("Zimmer") over the failure of his Zimmer designed and manufactured hip implant. This action is one of approximately thirty actions against Zimmer related to allegedly defective hip implants. Plaintiff moved to compel the production of transcripts of a number of depositions taken in connection with two other cases, Lillebo and Reiling. Following a hearing, United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel denied the motion in an Order dated January 24, 2005. Plaintiff appeals the denial of his motion.
In the same Order, the Magistrate Judge also denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply memorandum in support of his motion to compel and the defendant's request that the plaintiffs be ordered to pay its costs and fees incurred in responding to the motion. Plaintiff does not appeal these aspects of the Order.
Plaintiff first requested discovery related to the other Zimmer cases in late-December 2003. Plaintiff's more specific request for deposition transcripts, out of which this appeal arises, was made in December 2004. Discovery in this case closed in May 2003. Plaintiff points out that the deposition transcripts he seeks had not been created when discovery closed in this case, and argues that he should not, therefore, be penalized for not having made the request in a timely fashion. Defendant responds that plaintiff has not provided the Court with any reason to alter its scheduling order at this late date. Additionally, defendant points out that the depositions taken in connection with the Lillebo and Reiling cases are not likely to provide information useful to the plaintiff since those cases involve a different product than is implicated in this case and different theories of liability. Finally, plaintiff deposed two of the people whose deposition transcripts it now seeks.
The Magistrate Judge had broad authority to manage the discovery process. See McGowan v. General Dynamics Corp., 794 F.2d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 1986). After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the recording of the hearing held on this motion, the Court is not "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), or that this order will "result in fundamental unfairness in the trial of the case," McGowan, 794 F.2d at 363. As a result, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and, therefore, affirms the Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.1(b)(2).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Order [Docket No. 94] is DENIED and the Magistrate Judge's January 24, 2005 Order [Docket No. 92] is AFFIRMED.