Cleveland v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 20-cv-00676-CMA-NRN SUSAN CLEVELAND, Plaintiff, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Reid Neureiter’s September 28, 2020 Discovery Order (Doc. # 25). The Court overrules the Objection for the following reasons.

This is an underinsured motorist (UIM) case. Plaintiff, Susan Cleveland, alleges that she was injured in a car accident involving an underinsured driver. (Doc. # 5, ¶¶ 4- 31). Cleveland is now suing her auto-insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“Auto-Owners”), for UIM benefits. (Doc. # 5, ¶¶ 32-37). Auto-Owners denies that Cleveland is entitled to UIM benefits, and it has asserted the affirmative defense of failure to cooperate. (Doc. # 7).

Cleveland now seeks to depose a corporate representative of Auto-Owners pursuant to F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6). (Doc. # 25-2). Auto-Owners objected to the scope of the deposition notice, arguing that all but one of the topics listed in the deposition notice are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s cause of action. (Doc. # 25-1). After a hearing, Judge Neureiter overruled Auto-Owners’ objection and held that the deposition could proceed as noticed. (Doc. # 25). Auto-Owners now objects to Judge Neureiter’s order. (Doc. # 29).

Under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may reverse a magistrate judge’s decision on a non-dispositive matter only if the decision is found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” F.R.C.P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, the magistrate judge's finding should not be rejected merely because the court would have decided the matter differently. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 1511 (1985). Rather, the district court must affirm the decision of the magistrate judge unless the district court, “on the entire evidence[,] is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 1464 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, (1948)).

Having reviewed the deposition notice, the parties’ briefs, Judge Neureiter’s order, the transcript of the discovery hearing, and the relevant legal authority, the Court cannot conclude that Judge Neureiter’s order was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

F.R.C.P. 72(a). Therefore, the Court affirms and adopts Judge Neureiter’s order and overrules Defendant’s Objection (Doc. # 29).

It is therefore ORDERED that Judge Neureiter’s Order (Doc. # 25) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court. Defendant’s Objection (Doc. # 29) is OVERRULED.

DATED: March 3, 2021 BY THE COURT: CHRISTINE M. ARGUETLO United States District Judge