Federal Trade Commission v. Directv, Inc. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01129

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING {{126}} MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE 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 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE 9 PRETRIAL ORDER 10 DIRECTV, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 126 Defendants. 11 12 On March 30, 2016, non-party Paula Selis filed a motion for nondispositive relief from the Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Magistrate Judge's order directing Ms. Selis to sit for a three-hour oral deposition. See Dkt. No. 14 122. 15 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a district judge may set aside a magistrate 16 judge's non-dispositive pretrial order only if it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). "The magistrate's factual determinations are 18 reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate's legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether 19 they are contrary to law." Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 20 "When the court reviews the magistrate's determination of relevance in a discovery order, the 21 Court must review the magistrate's order with an eye toward the broad standard of relevance in the 22 discovery context. Thus, the standard of review in most instances is not the explicit statutory 23 language, but the clearly implicit standard of abuse of discretion." Id. at 348 (internal quotation 24 marks omitted). The Court can overturn the "magistrate's factual determinations only if the court 25 reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Id. (citations and 26 internal quotation marks omitted). "This standard is extremely deferential and the [m]agistrate's 27 rulings should be considered the final decisions of the [d]istrict [c]ourt." Otey v. CrowdFlower, 28 Inc., No. 12-CV-05524-JST, 2013 WL 3456942, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) (internal quotation 1 marks omitted). 2 The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's order and finds no clear error of fact or 3 legal conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the motion to set aside the Magistrate Judge's 4 order is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 4/22/2016 7 8 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2