*1 Pending before this Court is Defendants' Objection to and Motion to Stay the Magistrate's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. 520], filed on May 17, 2023. Therein, defendants object to Magistrate Judge Mazzone's Order granting the discovery of the individual defendants' personal tax returns for a 5-year period. See [Doc. 517].

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may refer to a magistrate judge “a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The parties may file objections to the magistrate judge's order, and the magistrate judge's ruling may be reversed only on a finding that the order is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 354 (1948). In light of the broad discretion given to a magistrate judge in the resolution of nondispositive discovery disputes, the court should only overrule a magistrate judge's determination if this discretion is abused. Detection Sys., Inc. v. Pittway Corp., 96 F.R.D. 152, 154 (W.D. N.Y. 1982); Shoop v. Hott, 2010 WL 5067567, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. Dec. 6, 2010) (Stamp, J.).

Upon consideration of the objection and the aforementioned standard of review, Defendants' Objection to and Motion to Stay the Magistrate's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. 520] is OVERRULED and DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein.