Accellix, Inc. v. Christian Aguilera-Sandoval

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00440
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ACCELLIX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-440-TPB-AEP

CHRISTIAN AGUILERA- SANDOVAL,

Defendant. /

ORDER OVERRULING “DEFENDANT’S RULE 72(A) OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DISCOVERY ORDER”

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Christian Aguilera-Sandoval’s objections to United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Order dated October 9, 2025. (Doc. 102). In his Order, Judge Porcelli granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motions for protective orders with respect to Defendant’s attempts to depose Plaintiff’s customers and one of its board members. (Doc. 99).1 On October 14, 2025, Defendant timely filed his objections. On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s objections. (Doc. 112). A party may file objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter within fourteen days after service of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). When objections are filed, the district court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to

1 Defendant filed a motion for clarification or modification of Judge Porcelli’s October 9, 2025, Order, which Judge Porcelli granted only to the extent that he restated his prior ruling. See (Docs. 103; 114). law.” Jd. An order is contrary to law if the magistrate judge failed to apply or misapplied the relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules. TemPay, Inc. v. Biltres Staffing of Tampa Bay, LLC, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citing S.E.C. v. Kramer, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1326-27 (M.D. Fla. 2011)). After a review of the record, the undersigned concludes that Judge Porcelli’s October 9, 2025, Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Consequently, Defendant’s objections are overruled, and Judge Porcelli’s October 9, 2025, Order shall remain the Order of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Defendant’s objections (Doc. 102) are OVERRULED, and Judge Porcelli’s October 9, 2025, Order (Doc. 99) shall remain the Order of the Court. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 7th day of November, 2025.

NAP. GA. TOMBARBER — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2