United States of America v. St. Mark's Hospital

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. GERALD POLUKOFF, M.D.,

Plaintiff/Relator, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION v. OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION

ST. MARK’S HOSPITAL; INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE, INC.; INTERMOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTER; SHERMAN SORENSEN, M.D.; and SORENSEN Case No. 2:16-CV-304-TS-EJF CARDIOVASCULAR GROUP, District Judge Ted Stewart Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Objection of Magistrate Judge Order Compelling Production of Peer Review Materials. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will overrule the objection. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court reviews a Magistrate Judge’s orders on nondispositive matters under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.1 “The clearly erroneous standard . . . requires that the reviewing court affirm unless it ‘on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”2 The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Order, Defendants’ objection thereto, the underlying briefing, and the relevant case law. Having done so, the Court cannot

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 2 Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ objection (Docket No. 413) is OVERRULED. Defendants are directed to produce the documents required under the January 21, 2020 Order (Docket No. 404) within seven (7) days of this Order. DATED this 20th day of March, 2020. BY THE COURT:

a A Uneted States District Judge