Unlike with R&Rs on dispositive matters, the magistrate judges do not typically flag the deadline for objections to non-dispositive orders. No surprise, then, that attorneys sometimes seem to forget that parties can object to even non-dispositive rulings by magistrate judges under FRCP 72(a). Yesterday Judge Williams overruled such an objection to a non-dispositive order by Magistrate Judge Burke.
As Nate discussed last month, Judge Burke had granted a motion to strike a late-disclosed disclosure-dedication argument, because the party making the argument had never disclosed it in response to a contention interrogatory, and instead (apparently) held it until the summary judgment stage.
Judge Williams easily overruled seven different grounds for objections to Judge Burke's order, and ultimately found that the objecting party had failed to clear the bar for objections:
SBH fails to establish any aspect of Magistrate Judge Burke's decision that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law or an abuse of discretion.
Bausch & Lomb Incorporated et al v. SBH Holdings LLC, C.A. No 20-1463-GBW-CJB, D.I. 267 (D. Del. Mar. 11, 2025). The Court turned wasted no time in responding to the objections, issuing its ruling just 3 weeks after defendant filed. Sometimes, the Court has even issue an order even before the defending party can file an answer.
Still, it's good to keep in mind that that possibility is out there, regardless of which side you are on—assuming the objections can clear the standard of review.
Standard of Review
Successful objections to non-dispositive orders from magistrate judges do exist, but they are rare. One of the first hurdles is identifying the proper standard of review (LR 72.1(b)), which can be easier said than done. Multiple standards may apply depending on the nature of the ruling.
FRCP 72 requires the District Court “to review findings of fact for clear error and to review matters of law de novo.” But Judge Williams also identified a third, more deferential standard, which neither party had raised:
There are also decisions that involve the exercise of discretion, and discretionary decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.’ . . . ‘This deferential standard of review is ‘especially appropriate where the Magistrate Judge has managed this case from the outset and developed a thorough knowledge of the proceedings.
Id. at 4 (emphasis added, quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, Judge Williams found that the particular standard did not matter—he would have overruled the objections regardless. Id.
Procedure Reminders
Objections are styled differently than motions, and a 2022 Standing Order sets some requirements beyond those listed in the local rules:
- No reply is permitted
- Objections and answers are limited to 10 pages (double-spaced)
- The objecting party must include a certification that the objections “do not raise new legal/factual arguments,” or else justify why new arguments were not previously presented
- Be sure to send courtesy copies. Judge Connolly has overruled objections on this basis.
Also, it's wrong to lodge objections as a letter requesting "guidance" while failing to actually object to the magistrate judge's opinion. The objecting party must actually file objections, or they'll risk having their criticism tossed before the reviewing judge even gets to the merits.
These are good things to keep in mind either way—whether you are the objecting party, or the party responding to the objections.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
