ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL, DOC. NO. 100
J. Michael Seabright United States District Judge
Before the court is Defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “Medtronic” or “Defendants”) appeal of a portion of Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi’s March 24, 2015 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff Karla Beavers-Gabriel’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Further Responses to (1) Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents and Tangible Things; and (2) Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Doc. No. 100, (the “March 24 Order”). Doc. No. 123. Defendants contend that the March 24 Order is clearly erroneous and contrary to law to the extent it orders Defendants to produce three categories of documents:
(1) “Communications with government agencies outside of the United States;”
(2) “Documents relating to published medical journal articles discussing the Infuse Device that were not read or relied upon by Plaintiff’s surgeon, Dr. Graham;” and
(3) “Documents relating to Dr. Foley, a physician who was not involved in the care and treatment of Plaintiff.” Id. at 2-4.
For the reasons discussed below, the court AFFIRMS the March 24 Order.
On December 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed this diversity action asserting state law claims based on injuries she sustained after undergoing spinal surgery in which her surgeon used Defendants’ Infuse® Bone Graft (the “Infuse Device”), a Class III prescription medical device, in an off-label manner not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Pursuant to this court’s orders dismissing some of Plaintiff’s claims and granting leave to file an amended complaint, see Doc. Nos. 32-33, 49, & 62, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on October 6, 2014, asserting the following claims:
(1) Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Fraud by Omission (Count I), and Negligent Misrepresentation (Count II), to the extent based on Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and/or concealments regarding health and safety problems associated with off-label use of the Infuse Device;
(2) Breach of Express Warranty (Count V), to the extent based on Defendants’ alleged representations regarding off-label use of the Infuse Device; and
(3) Strict Products Liability - Failure to Warn the FDA (Count III); and Negligent Failure-to-Warn the FDA (Count IV), to the extent based on Defendants’ alleged failure to warn Dr. Graham regarding the adverse effects of using the Infuse Device in an off-label manner.
Doc. No. 84, Order Denying Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s SAC (the “January 9 Order”) at 38-39; Beavers-Gabriel v. Medtronic, Inc., 2015 WL 143944, at *15 (D. Haw. Jan. 9, 2015).
On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff served numerous interrogatories and requests for production of documents (“RFP”). Doc. No. 126-7, Goldenberg Decl. ¶ 2. On February 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel based on Defendants’ allegedly inadequate responses to the interrogatories and RFPs. Doc. No. 88. Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Puglisi issued the March 24 Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 100.
On April 7, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the same three categories of documents at issue in the present appeal. Doc. No. 106. On April 28, 2015, Magistrate Judge Puglisi denied the Motion for Reconsideration and ordered Defendants to produce the documents at issue by May 4, 2015. Doc. No. 120, Order at 5. On May 5, 2015, Defendants filed the instant appeal, Doc. No. 123, and the parties stipulated to stay production of these documents subject to the appeal, and to an expedited briefing schedule, which includes Defendants’ waiver of a Reply. Doc. No. 121. Plaintiff filed her Opposition on May 8, 2015. Doc. No. 126. The court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Local Rules (“LR”) 7.2(d) and 74.1.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and LR 74.1, any party may appeal to the district court any pretrial nondispositive matter determined by a magistrate judge. Such an order may be reversed by the district court judge only when it is “clearly ...