Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00573/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00573-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DIANE G. MELECH, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 10-00573-KD-M 

 ) 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ) 

NORTH AMERICA, et al., ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Rule 72 “Statement of Appeal of Magistrate 

Judge’s Order [D.E. 129]” (Docs. 130, 131) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 132). 

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 129) is clearly 

erroneous and contrary to law because the ruling “interprets” a prior order (April 27, 2012 Order 

mandating conflict-of-interest discovery) as providing that the Defendant “is not required to 

produce documents [highly relevant to the conflict-of-interest issue] evidencing the actual 

evaluations performed for each of its employees involved in closing Melech’s claim[.]” Plaintiff 

contends that such information is critical to her ability to show whether the Defendant’s decision 

was actually motivated by improper reasons such as company profitability. 

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 72(a), in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s order on a 

nondispositive matter, the court will set aside or modify an order only when it is found to be clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law.1

 The undersigned has reviewed the Order and Plaintiff’s Appeal. The 

 

1 A Magistrate Judge’s discovery rulings are final decisions not subject to a de novo determination. See, e.g., Merritt v. 

International Broth. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1017 (5th Cir. 1981); Featherston v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 

223 F.R.D. 647, 650-651 (N.D. Fla. 2004). Such final decisions are subject to a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” 

standard which is “extremely deferential.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Rule 72(a); S.D.Ala. LR 72.3(c); Pigott v. 

Sanibel Dev., LLC, 2008 WL 2937804, *5 (S.D. Ala. July 23, 2008). “Relief is appropriate under the ‘clearly 

erroneous’ prong...if the district court ‘finds that the Magistrate Judge abused his discretion or, if after viewing the 

record as a whole, the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Pigott, 2008 WL 

2937804, *5. A ruling is “contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statues, case law or rules of 

Case 1:10-cv-00573-KD-M Document 133 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 2
2 

Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 129) is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, 

it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Appeal (Docs. 130, 131) is DENIED and the Magistrate Judge’s 

Order (Doc. 129) is AFFIRMED such that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 132) is also DENIED. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 18th day of July 2012. 

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DUBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 procedure.” Id. 

Case 1:10-cv-00573-KD-M Document 133 Filed 07/18/12 Page 2 of 2