We find that Subpoena Document Request No. 7 as presented by plaintiff was facially
overly broad and unduly burdensome. While he would have been justified in denying plaintiff's
motion to compel with respect to this document request in its entirety, Magistrate Judge Bobrick,
after careful consideration of written and oral argument, modified that request by incorporating in
it a reqsonable time period (11 % years) and a reasonable product description (all clamps). The
defendant has responded to that document request as modified by Magistrate Judge Bobrick and
produced all documents called for thereunder. We find that Magistrate Judge Bobrick’s ruling
was sound and proper and not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we deny plaintiff's objections to the portion of Magistrate

Judge Bobrick’s August 22, 2002 order which denied plaintiff's fourth motion to compel

document discovery.

tJ, —

7 Wayne R. Andersen
United States District Judge

Dated: Cay pha, HZ.



Minute Ordeaonn (0697), we

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

rameet vient soir | Wayne R. Andersen | Ste Jee

CASE NUMBER 1C 6181 DATE 10/8/2002
CASE Frank Marusiak vs. Adjustable Clamp Company
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: ofthe motion being presented]

DOCKET ENTRY: ;

ql) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due__.

3) Oo Answer brief to motion due, . Reply to answer brief due

(4) a Ruling/Hearing on setfor___at

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ at

() Q Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for])on__—ssetfor__——at_

(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for]on___ at

(8) oO (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

QOFRCP4(m) OC Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

qo) ff [Other docket entry] Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: We deny plaintiff’s
objections to the portion of Magistrate Judge Bobrick’s August 22, 2002 order [83-1] which denied

plaintiff’s fourth motion to compel document discovery.

at ff {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff. g

Notified counsel by telephone.

| Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

. } SS!
7 | copy to jedgeimasisvate judge Byori dt yynod CT

courtroom, eye ud ett
TSA deputy’s 3 |

initials :
Date/time reaéived in ° 6- | *
central Clerk's Office



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
FRANK MARUSIAK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 01 C 6181
v. )
) Wayne R. Andersen
ADJUSTABLE CLAMP COMPANY, ) District Judge
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court on plaintiff's objections to the portion of Magistrate Judge
Bobrick’s August 22,2002 order which denies plaintiffs fourth motion to compel document
discovery. For the following reasons, plaintiff's objections are denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff specifically objects to the ruling on Subpoena Document Request No. 7. This
document called for:

Copies of all agreements, assignments and/or licenses between Adjustable and any

third parties related or pertaining to the rights of Adjustable to manufacture and

sell patented or licensed products.

Written arguments were presented to Magistrate Judge Bobrick by plaintiff and
defendant. Additionally, the matter was orally argued in open court before Magistrate Judge
Bobrick. On August 22, 2002, Magistrate Judge Bobrick ruled on Subpoena Document Request
No, 7 as follows:

With respect to Subpoena Document Request No. 7, defendant is to produce all
agreements, assignments and\or licenses between Adjustable and any third parties



relating to the rights of Adjustable to manufacture and sell clamps which were
entered into during the period from January 1, 1991 through August 9, 2002.

DI SSI

Magistrate Judge Bobrick’s order is reviewed by this Court under the “clearly erroneous”
or “contrary to law” standard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Seventh
Circuit has explained the standard as follows:

The district court’s view of any discovery-related decisions made by the

magistrate judge is governed by Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which provides: ‘The district court to whom the case is assigned shall

consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the

magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous of contrary to law.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The clear error standard means that the
district court can overturn the magistrate judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. (Citations omitted).

In this case, Subpoena Document Request No. 7 is not limited on its face to any time or
product type period whatsoever, As presented, it seeks agreements, assignments and/or licenses
with any third parties related, or pertaining to, the rights of the defendant to manufacture and sell
patented or licenses products which were entered into at any time during the defendant’s one
hundred year history. The deficiency in this Subpoena Document Request was remedied by
Magistrate Judge Bobrick in his ruling by requiring the defendant to produce all agreements,
assignments and/or licenses with any third parties relating to the manufacture and sale of clamps

(of all types). Moreover, Magistrate Judge Bobrick also limited the document request to a period

of eleven and one-half years.