STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants. /
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MARCH 17, 2023, ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ objection (Doc. 64) to United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed’s Order dated March 17, 2023 (Doc. 63). Defendants filed a response. (Doc. 72). In her Order, Judge Sneed granted in part, and denied in part, “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses” (Doc. 46). Judge Sneed conducted an individualized review of the 42 discovery requests that Plaintiffs sought to compel. Plaintiffs object to the rulings on 10 of those 42 requests. 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 review of the record, the undersigned concurs with Judge Sneed. Judge Sneed’s Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Consequently, the objection is overruled, and Judge Sneed’s March 17, 2023, Order shall remain the Order of the Court. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The objection (Doc. 64) is OVERRULED, and Judge Sneed’s March 17, 2023, Order (Doc. 63) shall remain the Order of the Court. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 19th day of April, 2023.
a A fo yh ‘TOMBARBER i (asssi—(‘“‘i;t;™”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. Transp. & Sec. Admin., 2020 WL 7081531 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…inding is ‘clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Tempay, Inc. v. Biltres Staffing of Tampa, LLC, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (quoting United States v. United Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law[,] or rules of procedure." Id. (quotation omitted). Judge H…
-
Accellix, Inc. v. Aguilera-Sandoval (M.D. Fla. 2025)…Document 116 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1724 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.…1 / 2
-
Mondamin Wilkins v. Progressive Select Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…Document 86 Filed 10/14/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID 7533 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 c…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Kramer, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2011)
- Tempay, Inc. v. Biltres Staffing OF Tampa BAY, LLC, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (M.D. Fla. 2013)