Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney

Background

Lynne Freeman objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s January 30, 2025 order. Freeman also moved to designate Professor Reiss as an expert rebuttal witness, seeking to reverse what Freeman described as Netburn’s three refusals to allow that designation.

Standard of Review

The district court stated that it should affirm a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order unless the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. An order is clearly erroneous when, after reviewing all the evidence, the reviewing court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake was made.

Court’s Analysis

The court found no mistake in Magistrate Judge Netburn’s decision and concluded that the order complied with the law. It relied on the court’s earlier finding that Reiss’s proposed testimony was inadmissible because it considered only similarities between the parties’ works and failed to address their differences, which the court described as highly relevant evidence.

The court also noted that the reliability of Reiss’s report had been reduced because Reiss identified many similarities that were plainly genre conventions and tropes but did not identify them as such. Although Freeman argued that Reiss’s testimony would be acceptable and useful subject to limitations, the court concluded that excluding it was prudent.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton overruled Freeman’s objections and affirmed Magistrate Judge Netburn’s January 30, 2025 order. The opinion therefore left in place the refusal to designate Professor Reiss as an expert rebuttal witness.