UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-13783

v. HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

BHELLIOM ENTERPRISES CORP.,

Defendant. 

_____________________________/

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s objection [dkt 37] to Magistrate Judge

Michael Hluchaniuk’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Compel

discovery [dkt 35]. The objection has been fully briefed. The Court finds that the facts and legal

arguments are adequately presented in the parties’ papers such that the decision process would not

be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), it is hereby

ORDERED that the objection be resolved on the briefs submitted. 

Generally, this action involves claims of trademark infringement and false advertising

between makers of competing energy drinks, one purporting to provide consumers with 5 hours of

energy, and the other purporting to provide consumers with 8 hours of energy. Following a hearing

on the matter, the Magistrate issued an order denying Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to

produce its product formulas on the basis that such product formulas were not relevant to the claims

or defenses in this action. The Magistrate also denied Defendant’s request to strike several of

Plaintiff’s general objections to Defendant’s discovery requests on the basis that consideration of

the matter was a waste of time. 

A district court judge “may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where

2:09-cv-13783-MAG-RSW Doc # 60 Filed 02/09/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1688
2

it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “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). 

Defendant first objects to the Magistrate’s order on the basis that, in fairness, Plaintiff should

have to disclose its product formulas because Defendant previously provided Plaintiff with its

product formulas. However, Defendant’s objection does not cite any legal authority demonstrating

that the Magistrate’s order, which was based on the relevancy of the formulas, was clearly erroneous

or contrary to law. Similarly, Defendant’s objection does not provide the Court with any legal

authority demonstrating that the Magistrate’s denial of Defendant’s request to strike Plaintiff’s

general objections to Defendant’s discovery requests is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, Defendant’s objection [dkt 37] is DENIED, and Defendant must comply with the

Magistrate’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 9, 2011

2:09-cv-13783-MAG-RSW Doc # 60 Filed 02/09/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1689
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on February 9, 2011.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-13783-MAG-RSW Doc # 60 Filed 02/09/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1690