Balow v. Medtronic USA, Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Balow v. Medtronic USA, Inc.
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jeffrey Balow, No. 23-cv-843 (KMM/ECW)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
Medtronic USA, Inc.,
Defendant.
On May 6, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied
Plaintiff Jeffrey Balow’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, denied
Balow’s Motion to Reconsider a Protective Order, and granted Defendant Medtronic USA,
Inc.’s Motion for a Protective Order as to Third Party Subpoenas. Order, ECF 108. Balow
objects to the May 6th Order, arguing that Judge Wright misapplied Rule 16(b)’s good-
cause standard in denying his motion to amend and erred in granting Medtronic’s motions
for protective orders without a sufficient showing of good cause under Rule 26(c). Pl.’s
Objections, ECF 112. As explained below, Balow’s objections are overruled, and the May
6th Order is affirmed.
The standard of review applicable to a nondispositive order is “extremely
deferential,” and the May 6th Order will be reversed only if it is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” Scott v. United States, 552 F. Supp. 2d 917, 919(D. Minn. 2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3). Clear error exists when, on the entire record, the reviewing court has “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” and the decision is contrary to law when it “fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States,750 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1050
(D. Minn. 2010) (citations omitted).
Mr. Balow points to no authority to support the suggestion that Judge Wright failed
to apply or misapplied relevant law. As a result, Balow has failed to show that the May 6th
Order is contrary to law. Otherwise, Mr. Balow’s objections articulate nothing more than a
disagreement with Judge Wright’s assessment of the record. He does not come close to
showing that the May 6th Order was clearly erroneous in any respect. Judge Wright
correctly determined that Balow failed to show that there was good cause for leave to
amend. Tr. (May 6, 2024) 24–31, ECF 119. Further, Judge Wright properly found that
Medtronic demonstrated good cause for the issuance of protective orders preventing Balow
(1) from pursuing third-party discovery that is disproportionate to the needs of the case,
and (2) from further questioning Medtronic’s investigator, Fred Bragg, concerning
Medtronic’s anti-bribery and corruption policy. Tr. 31–38.
Accordingly, because Mr. Balow has failed to demonstrate that any aspect of the
May 6th Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, his Objections to the May 6th Order,
ECF 112, are OVERRULED, and the May 6th Order, ECF 108, is AFFIRMED.
Date: August 1, 2024 s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jeffrey Balow, No. 23-cv-843 (KMM/ECW)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
Medtronic USA, Inc.,
Defendant.
On May 6, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied
Plaintiff Jeffrey Balow’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, denied
Balow’s Motion to Reconsider a Protective Order, and granted Defendant Medtronic USA,
Inc.’s Motion for a Protective Order as to Third Party Subpoenas. Order, ECF 108. Balow
objects to the May 6th Order, arguing that Judge Wright misapplied Rule 16(b)’s good-
cause standard in denying his motion to amend and erred in granting Medtronic’s motions
for protective orders without a sufficient showing of good cause under Rule 26(c). Pl.’s
Objections, ECF 112. As explained below, Balow’s objections are overruled, and the May
6th Order is affirmed.
The standard of review applicable to a nondispositive order is “extremely
deferential,” and the May 6th Order will be reversed only if it is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” Scott v. United States, 552 F. Supp. 2d 917, 919(D. Minn. 2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3). Clear error exists when, on the entire record, the reviewing court has “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” and the decision is contrary to law when it “fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States,750 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1050
(D. Minn. 2010) (citations omitted).
Mr. Balow points to no authority to support the suggestion that Judge Wright failed
to apply or misapplied relevant law. As a result, Balow has failed to show that the May 6th
Order is contrary to law. Otherwise, Mr. Balow’s objections articulate nothing more than a
disagreement with Judge Wright’s assessment of the record. He does not come close to
showing that the May 6th Order was clearly erroneous in any respect. Judge Wright
correctly determined that Balow failed to show that there was good cause for leave to
amend. Tr. (May 6, 2024) 24–31, ECF 119. Further, Judge Wright properly found that
Medtronic demonstrated good cause for the issuance of protective orders preventing Balow
(1) from pursuing third-party discovery that is disproportionate to the needs of the case,
and (2) from further questioning Medtronic’s investigator, Fred Bragg, concerning
Medtronic’s anti-bribery and corruption policy. Tr. 31–38.
Accordingly, because Mr. Balow has failed to demonstrate that any aspect of the
May 6th Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, his Objections to the May 6th Order,
ECF 112, are OVERRULED, and the May 6th Order, ECF 108, is AFFIRMED.
Date: August 1, 2024 s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown