Buy This Entire Record For
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Elite Health Centers, Inc.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
August 26, 2019
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
ELITE HEALTH CENTERS, INC., ELITE CHIROPRACTIC, P.C., ELITE REHABILITATION, INC., MIDWEST MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., PURE REHABILITATION, INC., DEREK L. BITTNER, D.C., P.C., MARK A. RADOM, DEREK LAWRENCE BITTNER, D.C., RYAN MATTHEW LUKOWSKI, D.C., MICHAEL P. DRAPLIN, D.C., NOEL H. UPFALL, D.O., MARK J. JUSKA, M.D., SUPERIOR DIAGNOSTICS, INC., CHINTAN DESAI, M.D., MICHAEL J. PALEY, M.D., DEARBORN CENTER FOR PHYSICAL THERAPY, L.L.C., MICHIGAN CENTER FOR PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., and JAYSON ROSETT, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MARK RADOM'S
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER GRANTING STATE
FARM'S MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING DISCLOSURE OF
STATEMENTS MADE BY AMY ROSENBERG TO MARK RADOM (Doc.
COHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an insurance fraud case. Before the Court is Mark Radom's
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Opinion and Order
Granting State Farm's Motion for Order Permitting
Disclosure of Statements Made by Mark Radom to Amy Rosenberg
(Doc. 503). The issue is whether the magistrate judge's
decision permitting the disclosure of statements made by Mark
Radom to Amy Rosenberg is clearly erroneous or contrary to
the law? The answer is no. Accordingly, the objections will
Rosenberg (Rosenberg) is the ex-wife of defendant Mark Radom
(Radom). On August 29, 2018, Ms. Rosenberg signed a sworn
affidavit (Affidavit), recounting information about the
alleged fraud scheme at issue in this case, including
describing statements Radom made to Rosenberg about the
scheme alleged by State Farm while they were married. In
October of 2018, Rosenberg gave the Affidavit to State Farm.
in October, State Farm filed a Motion for Order Permitting
Disclosure of Statements Made by Mark Radom to Amy Rosenberg,
explaining statements in the Affidavit are not privileged
because they: (1) were not elicited through examination in a
court proceeding; and (2) are not confidential, primarily
because they involve financial or business transactions and
third parties. See Docs. 345, 346.
magistrate judge granted the motion, finding that “MCL
600.2162(4), is not applicable to the Affidavit at issue here
because Rosenberg was not ‘examined' about
communications with Radom during her marriage in that
Affidavit.” (Doc. 503 at 20).
decision and order of a non-dispositive motion by a
magistrate judge will be upheld unless it is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Massey v. City of
Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 1993). A district
judge shall consider such objections and may modify or set
aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found
to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(a). “The ‘clearly erroneous' standard
applies only to the magistrate judge's factual findings;
legal conclusions are reviewed under the plenary
‘contrary to law' standard.... “ Haworth,
Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 289, 291 (W.D.
Mich. 1995) (citing Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp.
684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992)). Clear error has occurred when the
reviewing court “is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
United States v. Caseer, 399 F.3d 828, 840 (6th Cir.
2005) (citations omitted). “An order is contrary to law
when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case
law, or rules of procedure.” Ford Motor Co. v.
United States, 2009 WL 2922875, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept.
Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's order and
papers relating to Radom's objections. Nothing in the
magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. Rather, the magistrate judge applied the
correct law to the facts to conclude that the marital
privilege does not apply. No further explanation is
the magistrate judge's order granting State Farm's
motion permitting disclosure of statements made by Amy
Rosenberg is AFFIRMED. Radom's objections are DENIED.