Case 1:18-cv-25474-RAR Document 256 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2021 Page 9 of 14
States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 365, 395 (1948)); see also United States v. Brown, 947 F.3d 655, 673 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted) (“[W]e have explained that a district court’s factual finding is clearly erroneous only if it leaves us with ‘a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”). “Clear error is a highly deferential standard of review.” Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). As courts in this Circuit have expressly noted, “a magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion in issuing nondispositive pretrial orders related to discovery.” Triolo v. United States, No. 18-91934, 2019 WL 5704659, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2019) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Sartori v. United States Army, No. 17-679, 2019 WL 1116781, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2019) (citation omitted) (“[W]hen reviewing a non-dispositive pretrial discovery order, the court affords ‘broad discretion’ to the magistrate judge.”). Thus, “[i]t is seldom easy to establish clear error.” Brown, 947 F.3d at 673 (citation and internal quotation omitted); see also Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 122 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (“The standard for overturning a Magistrate Judge’s Order is a very difficult one to meet.”).
The Court is not persuaded that Magistrate Judge Becerra’s striking of the Knox and Stevens affidavits was clearly erroneous. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Becerra that Plaintiffs’ failure to disclose Stevens and failure to disclose Knox’s knowledge of the copyright ownership and transfer agreements are neither substantially justified nor harmless. See Lawver v. Hillcrest Hospice, Inc., 300 F. App’x 768, 770 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen a party fails to comply with [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26, the district court does not abuse its discretion by striking an affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 37(c).”); Pete’s Towing Co. v. City of Tampa, Fla., 378 F. App’x 917, 919–20 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholding district
Page 9 of 14
