UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-11700

Paul D. Borman

v. United States District Judge

Stephanie Dawkins Davis

United States Magistrate Judge

POINTE PHYSICAL THERAPY, LLC,

et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) REJECTING NON-PARTY AFFILIATED

DIAGNOSTIC OF OAKLAND, LLC’S OBJECTION TO OPINION AND

ORDER DATED JUNE 12, 2017 DENYING MOTION TO QUASH TO

SUBPOENA (ECF NO. 236); and (2) AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DAVIS’S JUNE 12, 2017 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDERS and MOTION TO QUASH (ECF NO. 235) 

On June 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Davis issued an Opinion and Order (ECF

No. 235) denying in part the Motion of non-party Affiliated Diagnostic of Oakland

County’s (“Affiliated”) to Quash and/or for a Protective Order (ECF No. 183). On

June 26, 2017, Affiliated filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s June 12, 2017

Opinion and Order, which is presently before the Court. (ECF No. 236.) For the

1

Case 2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD ECF No. 244, PageID.9304 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 6
reasons that follow, the Court REJECTS Affiliated’s Objection, and AFFIRMS the

Magistrate Judge’s June 12, 2017 Opinion and Order.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) both

provide that a district judge must modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate

judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to

law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The United States Supreme

Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals have stated that “a finding 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.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948) (explaining

the clearly erroneous standard under Rule 52(a)); Hagaman v. Comm'r of Internal

Revenue, 958 F.2d 684, 690 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting U.S. Gypsum Co.). See also

United States v. Mandycz, 200 F.R.D. 353, 356 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (explaining the

standard under Rule 72(a)). 

This standard does not empower a reviewing court to reverse the Magistrate

Judge’s finding because it would have decided the matter differently. Anderson v.

City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (interpreting the clearly

erroneous standard in Rule 52(a)). The Sixth Circuit has noted that: “[t]he question

2

Case 2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD ECF No. 244, PageID.9305 Filed 07/21/17 Page 2 of 6
is not whether the finding is the best or only conclusion that can be drawn from the

evidence, or whether it is the one which the reviewing court would draw. Rather, the

test is whether there is evidence in the record to support the lower court’s finding, and

whether its construction of that evidence is a reasonable one.” Heights Cmty. Cong.

v. Hilltop Realty, Inc., 774 F.2d 135, 140 (6th Cir. 1985). 

“The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies only to the magistrate judge’s factual

findings; his legal conclusions are reviewed under the plenary ‘contrary to law’

standard. . . . Therefore, [the reviewing court] must exercise independent judgment

with respect to the magistrate judge’s conclusions of law.” Haworth, Inc. v. Herman

Miller, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 289, 291 (W.D. Mich.1995) (citing Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.

Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992)). “‘An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply

or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’” Mattox v. Edelman,

No. 12-13762, 2014 WL 4829583, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2014) (quoting Ford

Motor Co. v. United States, No. 08–12960, 2009 WL 2922875, at *1 (E.D. Mich.

Sept. 9, 2009)).

III. ANALYSIS

It has been established that bank records of certain third party entities are

relevant and may be discoverable in this case. In her June 12, 2017 Opinion and

Order, Magistrate Judge Davis held that Affiliated was such an entity whose relation

3

Case 2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD ECF No. 244, PageID.9306 Filed 07/21/17 Page 3 of 6
to the alleged fraudulent scheme had been adequately demonstrated so that

Affiliated’s bank records were relevant and discoverable. Affiliated Objects to this

determination, asserting (with no factual support) that the Magistrate Judge “took a

leap of faith,” and based her ruling on “pure speculation and conjecture.” (ECF No.

236, Objection 6, PgID 8946.) The Court rejects Affiliated’s Objection and concludes

that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling that Affiliated’s bank records are relevant and

discoverable was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

As an initial matter, Affiliated’s very general Objection fails to identify exactly

where it claims the Magistrate Judge erred – that is to say that the Objection does not

identify any particular factual finding that it disputes or any legal conclusion that it

claims is contrary to law. Rather, Affiliated merely asserts, without explication, that

State Farm is engaged in a “rambling exploration” in an endeavor “to determine

whether a claim exists.” (Objection 7, PgID 8947.) Such general assertions, which

fail to direct this Court’s attention to the particular aspects of the Magistrate Judge’s

Order that it claims are factually erroneous or contrary to law, are insufficient to

warrant review.

In any event, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Davis gave sufficient

factual basis for her determination regarding relevance, none of which is convincingly

disputed by Affiliated in its Objection. The following support the Magistrate Judge’s

4

Case 2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD ECF No. 244, PageID.9307 Filed 07/21/17 Page 4 of 6
findings related to Affiliated’s alleged role in the alleged fraudulent scheme, and thus

of the relevance of Affiliated’s banking records to the issues in this case, and the need

to discover financial information from Affiliated’s banking institution: (1) evidence

that suggests that Affiliated may be owned in part by Defendant Bazzi’s daughter and

that Defendant Bazzi may actually control the operations of Affiliated; (2) State

Farm’s inability to obtain through other means the financial information that would

be necessary to establish the alleged fraudulent scheme; and (3) the absence of any 

articulated significant burden of compliance on Affiliated, given that the subpoena is

directed to Affiliated’s banking institution, Citizens Bank, N.A. 

In addition, the recently-filed Affidavit of Dr. Ram Gunabalan, M.D. supports

the suggestion of a tie between Affiliated and the alleged fraudulent scheme. (ECF

No. 242, Corrected Affidavit of Dr. Ram Gunabalan ¶ 70.) The Magistrate Judge’s

finding of the relevance of Affiliated’s financial banking records is neither clearly

erroneous nor contrary to law.

IV. CONCLUSION

State Farm has sufficiently suggested Affiliated’s relation to the alleged

fraudulent scheme such that Affiliated’s banking records are relevant and discoverable

in this action. Magistrate Judge Davis’s ruling denying Affiliated’s motion to

quash/and or for a protective order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary law.

5

Case 2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD ECF No. 244, PageID.9308 Filed 07/21/17 Page 5 of 6
Accordingly, Affiliated’s Objection is REJECTED, and the Magistrate Judge’s June

12, 2017 Order is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 21, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each

attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July

21, 2017.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

6

Case 2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD ECF No. 244, PageID.9309 Filed 07/21/17 Page 6 of 6