Sig Sauer, et al. v. Freed Designs (Doc. No. 97)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sig Sauer, Inc.; Check-Mate Industries, Inc.; Check-Mate International Products, Inc.; Nordon, Inc.; and Thomas Pierce d/b/a Pierce Designs, Plaintiffs v. Case No. 14-cv-461-SM Opinion No. 2017 DNH 191 Freed Designs, Inc., Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration and reversal of the magistrate judge’s order allowing plaintiffs to amend and interpose affirmative defenses (document no. 97) is denied.

The motion may suggest by its title that “reconsideration” of the order by the issuing magistrate judge is sought, but the overall context establishes otherwise. Defendant actually seeks modification or setting aside by the district judge (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). The magistrate judge’s order concerns procedural and nondispositive matters and involves the exercise of sound discretion. No part of the order has been shown to be either clearly erroneous or contrary to law or an abuse of discretion warranting either modification or setting aside in any respect.

Conclusion The motion (document no. 97) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge September 14, 2017 cc: Laura L. Carroll, Esq.

Zachary R. Gates, Esq.

Neal E. Friedman, Esq.

Michael J. Bujold, Esq.