MARCEL LIVAUDAIS, Senior District Judge
This matter is before the Court on defendant/counter claimant John Sullivan's appeal of the Magistrate Judge's denial, at Record document #15, of his motion for production of a recorded statement. Record document #16. Sullivan, a Jones Act seaman, alleges that he suffered an injury to his lower back on January 14, 2004, aboard the M/V Evelyn James, a dredge tender owned and operated by his employer, Atlantic Sounding. He reported his injury to the captain on duty, but finished his hitch working as a deckhand aboard the M/V Evelyn James for several days after his injury. At some point thereafter, Sullivan requested and received medical treatment for his alleged injury at the expense of his employer. He was released to return to work on limited duty, but he did not do so. On January 29, 2004, before he engaged an attorney, Sullivan gave a recorded statement regarding his accident and injury to an investigator for Atlantic Sounding.
On February 20, 2004, after receipt of Sullivan's demand for maintenance and cure via a letter from his attorney, Atlantic Sounding filed the captioned lawsuit for a declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to provide maintenance and cure to Sullivan. Sullivan answered and counterclaimed for damages. During discovery, after Sullivan's deposition was scheduled, his counsel first learned of the prior recorded statement. Atlantic Sounding rebuffed his request for a copy of the recorded statement prior to his deposition. Sullivan then requested by telephone that the Magistrate Judge order production of the statement prior to the deposition. His request was denied. The deposition was cancelled to give Sullivan the opportunity to appeal the ruling.
The district court's review of nondispositive decisions by a magistrate judge is limited to a determination of whether the decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (A); St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. SSA Gulf Terminals, Inc., 2002 WL 31375611 at **1-2 (E.D.La. 2002).
Sullivan argues that the court should, in its discretion, order production of the statement because he was unrepresented when he made the statement, he is a Jones Act seaman and is a ward of the admiralty court, and because he is a defendant in this litigation initiated by Atlantic Sounding. Atlantic Sounding argues that it is entitled to depose Sullivan to determine the extent of his unrefreshed recollection of the incident prior to production of the statement.
Magistrate Judge Shushan carefully considered the parties' arguments. Citing to the applicable law and the pertinent jurisprudence, the Magistrate Judge ordered that the statement be produced immediately after Sullivan's deposition by Atlantic Sounding, with a break for Sullivan's counsel to examine the statement prior to the resumption of his client's deposition.
After careful review of Magistrate Judge Shushan's ruling, the parties' memoranda and exhibits attached thereto, and the law, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's denial of Sullivan's motion for production of the statement prior to his deposition is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, Sullivan's appeal and objections to Magistrate Judge Shushan's denial of Sullivan's motion for production is OVERRULED.