As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Judge Pitman's Order dealt with two non-dispositive motions. “[A] judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,” except for certain enumerated motions. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When a magistrate judge issues an order regarding non-dispositive pretrial matters, the district court must determine whether such an order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). A magistrate judge's finding is “clearly erroneous” when, “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Derthick v. Bassett-Walker, Inc.,
Nos. 90 Civ. 5427, 90 Civ. 7479, 90 Civ. 3845, 1992 WL 249951, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.23, 1992) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). Under this deferential standard of review, magistrate judges are granted broad discretion and will only be reversed if that discretion is abused. See
Lanzo v. City of New York, No. 96 Civ. 3242, 1999 WL 1007346, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 1999) (citation omitted).