Nationwide Children's Hospital v. The Raymath Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Nationwide Children’s Hospital,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:23-cv-044
Judge Thomas M. Rose
The Raymath Company, et al.,
Defendants.
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
RESPONSE INSTANTER (DOC. 83), OVERRULING OBJECTION TO
MAGISTRATE'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 29, 2025. (DOC. 81). THE
COURT WILL SET A DATE FOR A CONFERENCE TO AMEND THE
TRIAL SCHEDULE.
On August 6, 2025, Unknown Benefit Builders, Inc. and Michael Kerns filed a Motion to
Quash Subpoenas or, Alternatively to Modify Subpoenas and for Protective Order. (Doc. 63.) On
October 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry denied that motion in its entirety. (Doc.
80.) Unknown Benefit Builders, Inc. and Michael Kerns have objected to the decision denying the
motion to quash. (Doc. 81.) The objection protests that the Magistrate Judge failed to limit the
subpoena, erred in ruling that Rule 27 considerations were waived, and erred in not establishing
reasonable controls for the deposition. (Doc. 81, PageID 1227-28.)
Case: 3:23-cv-00044-TMR Doc #: 88 Filed: 12/22/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
The Raymath Company and The Raymath Company Health Plan missed the deadline for
filing a response to the objection and on November 25, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Leave to File
Response Instanter. (Doc. 83.) That motion is unopposed and is GRANTED.
Because the Magistrate Judge's order involves non-dispositive matters, this Court's
reconsideration of the order is governed by the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of
review contained in Rule 72(a). See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001).
The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to factual findings made by the Magistrate Judge while
legal conclusions are reviewed “under the more lenient ‘contrary to law’ standard.” Gandee v.
Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). A finding is “clearly erroneous” only when the
reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. See In
re Search Warrants Issued Aug. 29, 1994, 889 F. Supp. 296, 298 (S.D. Ohio 1995) (citations
omitted). “‘To be clearly erroneous, a decision must strike us as more than just maybe or probably
wrong; it must ... strike us as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.’”
United States v. Perry, 908 F.2d 56, 58 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Parts and Elec. Motors, Inc. v.
Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir. 1988)). A court's review under the “contrary to
law” standard is “plenary, ... and it ‘may overturn any conclusions of law which contradict or
ignore applicable precepts of law, as found in the Constitution, statutes, or case precedent.’”
Gandee, 785 F. Supp. at 686.
The Court has reviewed the ruling of the Magistrate Judge and finds it neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES
Unknown Benefit Builders, Inc. and Michael Kerns’ Objection to Magistrate Judge Order.
(Doc. 81.)
Case: 3:23-cv-00044-TMR Doc #: 88 Filed: 12/22/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, December 22, 2025.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:23-cv-00044-TMR Doc #: 88 Filed: 12/22/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>