Case 1:17-cv-01065-MSG-RL Document 501 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15345
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ABBVIE INC. and ABBVIE
`BIOTECHNOLOGY, LTD,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
`INTERNATIONAL GMBH, BOEHRINGER
`INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
`FREMONT, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 17-1065-MSG
`
`ORDER
`
`AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2019, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Richard
`
`A. Lloret's January 17, 2019 Order Resolving Disputes Over Deposition Topics (Doc. No. 359),
`
`Plaintiffs' Objections to that Order (Doc. No. 396), and Defendants' Response to the Objections
`
`(Doc. No. 417), it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lloret's Order is AFFIRMED and
`
`Plaintiffs' Objections are OVERRULED. 1
`
`1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), "[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely
`objections and modify or set aside any part of [a magistrate judge's non-dispositive] order that is clearly
`erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A ruling is clearly erroneous when, "although
`there is evidence to support it, the reviewing Court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and
`firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364,
`395 (1948). This is so even ifthe district judge would have decided the issue differently. Marks v.
`Struble, 347 F. Supp. 2d 136, 149 (D.N.J. 2004). Under this standard, a magistrate judge's discovery
`ruling is entitled to great deference and is reversibly only for abuse of discretion. Tech v. U.S., 284
`F.R.D. 192, 197 (M.D. Pa. 2012).
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01065-MSG-RL Document 501 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15346
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`MITCHELL S. GOLDB
`
`Here, Judge Lloret was presented with a dispute as to thirty-three of the fifty topics set forth in
`Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Of those thirty-three disputed topics, Judge Lloret quashed
`seventeen of the topics in their entirety, limited the scope of several other topics, and permitted the
`remainder to proceed as proposed. In doing so, Judge Lloret considered the factors governing the
`scope of discovery set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b )(1) and found that many of the
`topics were disproportionate to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs now raise objections to Judge Lloret's
`ru Ii ng on seventeen of the topics.
`Upon consideration of both the parties' briefs regarding Plaintiffs' objections, and in light of
`the deferential standard set forth above, I do not find that Judge Lloret's ruling is either clearly
`erroneous or contrary to law. While Plaintiffs assert that the disputed deposition topics may produce
`information relevant to the parties ' claims and defenses, "courts have the discretion to limit relevant
`discovery." Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 224 F.R.D. 169, 174-75 (E.D. Pa. 2004). It is well
`settled that discovery is not necessarily appropriate simply because there is a possibility that the
`information may be relevant to the general subject matter of the action. Cole' s Wexford Hotel, Inc. v.
`Highmark Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d 810 (W.D. Pa. 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l)). Rather, as Judge
`Lloret concluded, the deposition topics at issue were disproportional , "considering the importance of
`the issues at stake the in action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
`information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
`the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b )(1 ).
`Finding no abuse of discretion in this ruling, I will overrule Plaintiffs' objections.
`
`2
`
`