MONDAMIN WILKINS
v.
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
A district court upheld a magistrate judge's order compelling production of attorney-client privileged documents in a discovery dispute, rejecting the plaintiff's objection and finding the magistrate's decision neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
The district court overruled the plaintiff's objection and upheld the magistrate judge's order, finding it neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The plaintiff was ordered to produce the documents by October 17, 2025.
“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.”
Establishes the procedural framework for appellate review of magistrate judge orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Mondamin Wilkins objected to Magistrate Judge Amanda Sansone's August 28, 2025 order that granted in part and denied in part defendant Progr…
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
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mondamin Wilkins's objection to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Sansone's Order dated August 28, 2025. (Doc. 54). In her Order, Judge Sansone granted in part and denied in part Defendant Progressive Select Insurance Company's motion to compel certain documents listed as withheld on Plaintiffs privilege log. On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to stay Judge Sansone's discovery order pending resolution of his forthcoming objection. (Doc. 56). The Court granted the requested stay. (Doc. 57). On September 11, 2025, Plaintiff timely filed his objection. (Doc. 59). On September 25, 2025, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs objection. (Doc. 61).
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 an independent and de novo review of the record, the undersigned concurs with Judge Sansone. Judge Sansone's August 28, 2025, Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Consequently, Plaintiffs objection is overruled, and Judge Sansone's August 28, 2025, Order shall remain the Order of the Court. Because the Court has overruled the objection, the stay is lifted. Plaintiff shall provide the documents on or before October 17, 2025.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 59) is OVERRULED, and Judge Sansone's August 28, 2025, Order (Doc. 54) shall remain the Order of the Court.
(2) Plaintiff is directed to provide the documents on or before October 17, 2025.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 14th day of October, 2025.
Jhp.Bl 6
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)