Nexstar Media Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns

1

NEXSTAR MEDIA INC., Plaintiff, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant.

No. 21-CV-6860 (JGK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

November 19, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The plaintiff, Nexstar Media Inc. ("Nexstar"), has filed objections to a discovery ruling by Magistrate Judge Aaron in an October 6, 2022 Order. ECF No. 154 (the "Order"). The defendant, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Comcast"), had moved for the Magistrate Judge to compel the production of several categories of documents concerning Nexstar's relationships with Mission Broadcasting Inc. ("Mission") and the television station WPIX. In the Order, the Magistrate Judge concluded that these documents "are relevant to Comcast's claims (including its counterclaim and third-party claim) and defenses," but that certain of the document requests were overbroad. Order at 1. The Magistrate Judge therefore ordered the parties to meet and confer to "appropriately narrow the scope of the overbroad requests." Id. Nexstar now objects to the Magistrate Judge's Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, arguing that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that Comcast's document requests are relevant. For the following reasons the objections are overruled.

I.

When considering objections to an order issued by a Magistrate Judge concerning discovery-related matters, the Court must "modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Ci P 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Lastra v. City of New York, No. 16-CV-3088, 2020 WL 5596100, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2020). An order is "clearly erroneous" only when "the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Surles v. Air France, 210 F.Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). An order is "contrary to law" when it "fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure. Id.^[1]

"Under this highly deferential standard, magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in resolving nondispositive disputes," including discovery disputes, and "reversal is appropriate only if their discretion is abused." Williams v. Rosenblatt Sec., Inc., 236 F.Supp.3d 802, 803 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). "The party seeking to overturn a magistrate judge's decision thus carries a heavy burden." ., No. 04-cv-6189, 2007 WL 2327068, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2007).

II.

Nexstar has not met its heavy burden to show that the Magistrate Judge's Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge reasonably found that documents concerning Nexstar's relationships with Mission and WPIX are relevant to Comcast's claims and defenses, including Comcast's "de facto control" defense to Nexstar's breach of contract claim, as well as Comcast's tortious interference counterclaim. The Magistrate Judge also concluded, however, that certain of Comcast's requests for these documents were overbroad, and therefore the Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to meet and confer to narrow the scope of the requests. In making these determinations, the Magistrate Judge appropriately balanced the factors in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and acted well within his "broad discretion to manage discovery disputes." Walker v. Carter, No. 12-cv-5384, 2016 WL 6820554, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016).

Nexstar argues that the requested documents are not relevant to Comcast's de facto control defense because this Court "already considered and rejected" the de facto control defense in a bench ruling on May 2, 2022. Pl.'s Obj., ECF No 158, at 6; see also ECF Nos. 46, 49. But this is not so. Comcast had moved to stay or dismiss this action under the doctrine of "primary jurisdiction" pending the resolution of a related petition filed by Comcast to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). See, e.g., Nat' l Commc' ns Ass 'n, Inc, v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 46 F.3d 220, 222-23 (2d Cir. 1995). In the May 2 ruling, the Court denied Comcast's motion, concluding instead that this action could proceed alongside the FCC action. ECF No. 49, at 21. The May 2 ruling did not address the merits of Comcast's breach of contract defenses,...