Center For Food Safety et al v. Vilsack et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01590

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING DEFENDANTS {{81}} MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., Case No. 15-cv-01590-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON- 9 v. DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 10 TOM VILSACK, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 81 11 Defendants. 12 On May 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted in part and denied in part Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Plaintiffs' motion to compel completion of the administrative record, or in the alternative, for 14 leave to conduct limited discovery. Dkt. No. 77. On May 17, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for 15 relief from Judge Westmore's order. Dkt. No. 81. On May 31, 2017, Plaintiffs file an opposition. 16 Dkt. No. 83. The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Westmore's order, Defendants' motion, 17 Plaintiffs' opposition, and the relevant legal authorities. Judge Westmore's order is well-reasoned 18 and thorough. The Court affirms the non-dispositive order because it is not "clearly erroneous or 19 contrary to law." See Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 Moreover, the Court declines to stay proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the 21 mandamus petition referenced by Defendants, see Dkt. No. 81 at 5, because Defendants have not 22 shown that they are entitled to a stay under the controlling four-factor test, see Nken v. Holder, 556 23 U.S. 418, 425 (2009). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for relief from Judge 24 Westmore's non-dispositive pretrial order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 6/19/2017 27 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge