govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_22-cr-00162-8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
CRIMINAL NO. 22-162(DSD/DLM) 
 
 
United States of America, 
 
 
   Plaintiff, 
 
v.          ORDER 
 
Joshua Gunnar Olson, 
 
   Defendants. 
 
 
This matter is before the court on the objection by defendant 
Joshua Olson to the January 14, 2026, order of Magistrate Judge 
Douglas L. Micko regarding the parties’ discovery dispute.  
The district court will modify or set aside a magistrate 
judge’s order on a nondispositive issue only if it is clearly 
erroneous or contrary to law.  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 72(a); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(a).  This is an “extremely 
deferential” standard.  Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. 
Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999).  “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.”  Chakales 
v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1995) 
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).  “A decision is 
contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant 
CASE 0:22-cr-00162-DWF-DLM     Doc. 266     Filed 03/12/26     Page 1 of 2
 
 
2 
statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross 
& Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008) 
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 
The court has reviewed the underlying briefs, the order, and 
the parties’ submissions.  Based on that review, the court finds 
no basis on which to overturn the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned 
decisions.  See ECF No. 256.   
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 
the objection [ECF No. 261] to the magistrate judge’s order is 
overruled. 
 
Dated: March 12, 2026 
      s/Paul A. Magnuson for   
      David S. Doty, Judge 
      United States District Court 
CASE 0:22-cr-00162-DWF-DLM     Doc. 266     Filed 03/12/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight