Balow v. Medtronic USA, Inc.

Background

United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a May 6, 2024 order that:

- denied Jeffrey Balow’s motion for permission to file a second amended complaint; - denied Balow’s motion to reconsider a protective order; and - granted Medtronic USA, Inc.’s motion for protective orders concerning third-party subpoenas.

Balow objected to that order. He argued that Judge Wright applied the wrong standard for showing good cause to amend a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). He also argued that Medtronic had not sufficiently shown good cause for protective orders under Rule 26(c).

Standard of Review

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s nondispositive order under a highly deferential standard. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the order could be reversed only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court has a firm conviction that a mistake was made after considering the entire record. A decision is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules.

Ruling

Judge Menendez concluded that Balow did not identify authority showing that Judge Wright failed to apply or misapplied the law. The court also determined that Balow’s objections largely expressed disagreement with Judge Wright’s assessment of the record and did not come close to showing clear error.

The court held that Judge Wright correctly found that Balow had not shown good cause to amend his complaint. It also held that Judge Wright properly found that Medtronic had shown good cause for protective orders preventing Balow from pursuing third-party discovery that was disproportionate to the needs of the case and from further questioning Medtronic investigator Fred Bragg about Medtronic’s anti-bribery and corruption policy.

The court overruled Balow’s objections and affirmed the May 6, 2024 order.