ACCELLIX, INC.
v.
CHRISTIAN AGUILERA-SANDOVAL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court overruled the Defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's discovery order.
[1] Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter only if the order is…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant objected to a Magistrate Judge's order that granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions for protective orders regarding discovery…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contrary To Law Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER OVERRULING “DEFENDANT'S RULE 72(A) OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISCOVERY ORDER"
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Christian Aguilera-Sandoval's objections to United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli's Order dated October 9, 2025. (Doc. 102). In his Order, Judge Porcelli granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs motions for protective orders with respect to Defendant's attempts to depose Plaintiffs customers and one of its board members. (Doc. 99). [fn 1] On October 14, 2025, Defendant timely filed his objections. On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant's objections. (Doc. 112).
A party may file objections to a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter within fourteen days after service of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). When objections are filed, the district court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Id. An order is contrary to law if the magistrate judge failed to apply or misapplied the relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules. TemPay, Inc. v. Biltres Staffing of Tampa Bay, LLC, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citing S.E.C. v. Kramer, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1326-27 (M.D. Fla. 2011)).
After a review of the record, the undersigned concludes that Judge Porcelli's October 9, 2025, Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Consequently, Defendant's objections are overruled, and Judge Porcelli's October 9, 2025, Order shall remain the Order of the Court.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Defendant's objections (Doc. 102) are OVERRULED, and Judge Porcelli's October 9, 2025, Order (Doc. 99) shall remain the Order of the Court.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 7th day of November, 2025.
/s/ Tom Barber
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: Defendant filed a motion for clarification or modification of Judge Porcelli's October 9, 2025, Order, which Judge Porcelli granted only to the extent that he restated his prior ruling. See (Docs. 103; 114).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Kramer, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2011)
- State v. Food & Drug Admin., 778 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2023)