*1 [¶ 1] THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon an Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order (Doc. No. 321) filed by third-party Assignor World Fuel Services, Corp. (“WFS”), on June 22, 2021. Doc. No. 324. The Defendants filed a Response on June 29, 2021. Doc. No. 325. WFS also filed a Motion for Oral Argument on July 1, 2021. Doc. No. 330. The Defendants filed a Response to that Motion on July 6, 2021. Doc. No. 331. For the reasons stated below, WFS's Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order is DENIED. Because the Parties’ positions on the issues raised on appeal have been fully explained, WFS's Motion for Oral Argument is DENIED.

[¶ 2] The Court will not repeat the history of the discovery dispute at the heart of the present appeal because it is set forth fully in Judge Hochhalter's Order (Doc. No. 321, pp. 1-4). For present purposes, on June 8, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Clare R. Hochhalter issued an Order Granting Motions to Compel subject to this appeal. Doc. No. 321. Judge Hochhalter found, as a matter of law, WFS waived its claim to attorney-client privilege as it relates to discovery disclosures required by the March 2020 subpoena because WFS failed to timely object on the attorney-client privilege ground. After reviewing the record and relevant law before him, Judge Hochhalter specifically found:

Doc. No. 321, p. 14.

[¶ 3] Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and District of North Dakota Local Rule 72.1(D), a magistrate judge is permitted to hear and determine non-dispositive matters in a civil case. Any party may appeal such determination to the district court judge assigned to the case who “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); D.N.D. Civ. L. R. 72.1(D)(2). “A magistrate judge's decision in a discovery dispute is entitled to substantial deference and will not be disturbed unless the ‘clearly erroneous’ or ‘contrary to law’ standards are met.” Jacam Chemical Company 2013, LLC v. Shephard, 2020 WL 6263747, *2 (D.N.D. August 18, 2020) (citing Fed. R. Civ P. 72(a) and Jones v. City of Elkhart, Ind., 737 F.3d 1107, 1115 (7th Cir. 2013)). A magistrate judge's finding is clearly erroneous when, although there may be some evidence to support it, the reviewing court, after considering the entirety of the evidence, is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Dixon v. Crete Med. Clinic, P.C., 498 F.3d 837, 847 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The burden of showing a ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law rests with the party filing the appeal. Marks v. Struble, 347 F. Supp. 2d 136, 149 (D.N.J. 2004); see also MKB Management Corp. v. Burdick, 2014 WL 11516246, *2 (D.N.D. January 28, 2014).

*2 [¶ 4] WFS argues Judge Hochhalter's Order is clearly erroneous relying on arguments and evidence not presented to Judge Hochhalter. Specifically, WFS contends (1) the March 24 phone call included an oral objection on attorney-client privilege grounds; (2) the general nature of the COVID-19 pandemic made it difficult to comply with the March 2020 subpoena; and (3) as a non-party, WFS had unusual circumstances and acted in good faith. To support these contentions, WFS included a new exhibit, a Declaration of Leslie M. Smith, which was not provided to Judge Hochhalter for review. Doc. No. 324-2.

[¶ 5] The Court has reviewed the entire record in this matter and concludes Judge Hochhalter's Order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); D.N.D. Civ. L. R. 72.1(D)(2). On the record before him, Judge Hochhalter correctly concluded WFS's failure to timely object was not rooted in good faith. In fact, WFS has repeatedly stalled the discovery process for the March 2020 subpoena – an issue that ought to have been resolved months ago.

[¶ 6] In addition, WFS's arguments relating to the March 24 phone call and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as Leslie Smith's declaration, are brought for the first time on appeal. The Court will not consider these arguments raised because “[t]o hold otherwise would allow a claimant to raise new claims to the district court and thus effectively have two opportunities for judicial review.” Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2000). See also id. (“[I]t is well established that, unless a manifest injustice would result, a claim not articulated to the district court is subject to forfeit on appeal.”); Reciprocal Exch. V. Noland, 542 F.2d 462, 464 (8th Cir. 1976) (regarding referring cases to magistrate judges for recommendations, the purpose of such referral “would be contravened if parties were allowed to present only selected issues to the magistrate, reserving their full panoply of contentions for the trial court”).

[¶ 7] The new arguments and exhibit provided to the Court in this appeal were or should have been known to WFS at the time it responded to the Defendants’ Motions to Compel. WFS, therefore, should have raised them in front of the Magistrate Judge. WFS has failed to show how it would be manifestly unjust to prohibit it from raising these new issues on appeal. The information pertaining to the March 24 phone call was known to WFS. That the COVID-19 pandemic caused world-wide disruption to business was also apparent at the time WFS responded to the Defendants’ Motions to Compel before Judge Hochhalter. Accordingly, the Court will not allow WFS to raise entirely new issues on appeal when the issues should have been raised in the first instance before Judge Hochhalter.

[¶ 8] In sum, the on-going saga of repeated discovery disputes and multiple appeals of discovery orders has exhausted enough judicial resources. Because Judge Hochhalter's Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, WFS's Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order is DENIED. As Ordered by Judge Hochhalter, WFS has fourteen (14) days to comply with Judge Hochhalter's Order (Doc. No. 321). As the Court previously warned WFS, “[f]ailure to promptly comply with Judge Hochhalter's Order may result in this Court Finding WFS in contempt.” Doc. No. 279, p. 6.

[¶ 9] Because this matter is fully briefed, the Court finds oral argument would be unnecessary. WFS's Motion for Oral Argument is DENIED.

[¶ 10] IT IS SO ORDERED.