455.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON T JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ____________________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHNSON’S DISCOVERY ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8's Appeal and Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order Entered September 10, 2009. (DE 327). Defendant filed a response in opposition to the motion on November 3, 2009. The Court has conducted a review of the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s order shall only modify or set aside the order if it is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Magistrate Judge Rule 4(a)(1). An order is clearly erroneous if “the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515, 1523 (11th Cir. 1997). See also United States v .United States Gypsum Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 455 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2010 Page 1 of 2 2 Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948) (explaining generally “[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”). The mere fact that a reviewing court might have decided the issue differently is not sufficient to overturn a decision when there are two permissible views of the issue. Georgia State Conference of Branches of NAACP v. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1416 (11th Cir. 1985). After careful review of the Magistrate’s Order, Plaintiffs’ Appeal, and Defendant’s Response, the Court finds that the Magistrate’s Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge fully addressed all of the issues presented and her order cogently explained her conclusions and the rationale behind those conclusions. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Appeal is, at least in part, founded upon the mistaken belief that the Magistrate Judge relied upon Defendant’s redacted filings, rather than unredacted version provided for in camera review. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8's Appeal and Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order Entered September 10, 2009. (DE 327) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 27 day of January, 2010. th ______________________________________ KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies to: all counsel of record Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 455 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2010 Page 2 of 2