*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Deponents' Objections to Magistrate Order. (DE 39). On October 16, 2023, Magistrate Judge William Matthewman entered an Order Overruling Objections to Subpoenas Deuces Tecum and Denying the Motion to Quash or in the Alternative Stay Enforcement of Subpoenas. (DE 38). I have considered the Magistrate's Order, the Objections, the Response to the Objections, and the Reply. (DE 38, DE 39, DE 49, DE 52). For the following reasons, I am going to overrule the Deponents' Objections and uphold the Magistrate's Order.

Orthogen International GMBH (“Petitioner” or “Orthogen”) filed an ex parte application in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 on May 4, 2023. (DE 1). In its application, Orthogen requests that the Court issue an order permitting it to seek discovery for a lawsuit it intends to file in Germany. Orthogen seeks to depose Mr. Edward Capla and Ms. Yolanda Capla to investigate potential fraud that the Capias committed on Orthogen when it underreported the number of Regenokide Program treatments Mr. Capla administered pursuant to their licensing agreement with Orthogen, and thus underpaid Orthogen in royalties. Orthogen's basis for such discovery is that Mr. Capla's partner—Dr. Schottenstein—made sworn statements in a proceeding in the Southern District of New York that he has brought against Orthogen and the Capias.

On May 6, 2023, I granted the ex parte application (DE 11). The Capias objected to the Order and Moved to Quash the Subpoenas on July 6, 2023. (DE 20). Thereafter, I referred the Motion to Quash to the Magistrate Judge. (DE 24). Judge Matthewman held a hearing on the Motion on August 28, 2023, to decide the merits of the Deponents' objections. After post-hearing briefing from both sides, Judge Matthewman overruled the objections and denied the Motion to Quash. (DE 38). In his Order, Judge Matthewman meticulously describes each side's arguments, the statutory requirements for obtaining discovery pursuant to § 1782, and the discretionary factors that may weigh against granting a § 1782 application despite a petitioner meeting the prima facie requirements under the statute. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 244–45 (2004). Subsequently, the Deponents objected to the magistrate's order within the allocated fourteen days. (DE 39).

In their objections, the Capias essentially rehash many of the arguments raised before the Magistrate. More specifically, the Capias argue that the Magistrate's Order fails to provide the appropriate weight to three arguments that they made at the hearing and in their briefing for why the subpoenas should be quashed. The Capias cite the Magistrate's improper consideration of their argument that Petitioner did not act with candor toward the Court, that the foreign discovery proceedings weigh in favor of Deponents, and that this Petition is better suited as discovery in the currently pending case in the Southern District of New York.

Under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district judge in the case may modify or set aside any part of an order that is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” “A 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.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). I have carefully reviewed the Magistrate's Order, the Deponents' objections, the Petitioner's Response, and the Deponents' Reply. I find that the Order is well grounded in law and fact. Each argument that the Deponents put forward to justify overturning the Magistrate's Order was explicitly addressed and considered by the Magistrate in ruling on the Motion to Quash. Further, I agree with the Magistrate and the Petitioner that the pending SDNY action deals with sufficiently different claims than the one here. The SDNY action involves claims surrounding allegations that Petitioner improperly terminated Dr. Schottenstein's license and that a risk exists with respect to the Regenokide Program that requires FDA approval. The action here seeks to obtain discovery from the Capias, who reside in Palm Beach County, regarding potential fraud committed by the Capias and Dr. Schottenstein against the Petitioner. In sum, I find that the statutory requirements for § 1782 have been met to grant discovery, and that Judge Matthewman correctly held that the discretionary Intel factors weigh in favor of the Petitioner.

*2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Deponents' Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion to Quash (DE 39) are OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge's Order (DE 38) is AFFIRMED.