BRENDA LEA HOPPER and DEBRA LYNN KURIFS, Co-Executrixes of Allen E. Smith's Estate, RICHARD L. ARMSTRONG, DONALD R. REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAY-BEE OIL & GAS, INC., JAY-BEE PRODUCTION COMPANY, JB EXPLORATION I, LLC, JAY-BEE ROYALTY, LLC, ABACUS UNION, LLC, JBU, LLC, BB LAND, LLC, JB EXPLORATION II, LLC, DMRB SERVICES, LLC, RANDALL J. BRODA, and DEBORAH V. BRODA-MORGAN, Defendants. and JUDITH E. ASH-YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all other persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JAY-BEE OIL & GAS, INC., JAY-BEE PRODUCTION COMPANY, JB EXPLORATION I, LLC, JAY-BEE ROYALTY, LLC, and RANDALL J. BRODA, Defendants Civil Action No.: 5:20CV101 (LEAD), (Consolidated WITH 5:20CV110) United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia Filed May 22, 2023 Bailey, John P., United States District Judge ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS *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.