In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name Likeness Licensing Litigation

Filing 75

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ANTITRUST PLAINTIFFS' 65 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2012)

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME AND LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION, No. C 09-1967 CW No. MC 11-80300 CW No. MC 12-80020 CW 6 ________________________________/ ORDER ON ANTITRUST PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 On March 8, 2012, Antitrust Plaintiffs filed a motion 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California requesting relief from a non-dispositive pretrial order entered by 11 a Magistrate Judge on February 27, 2012, in which the Magistrate 12 Judge issued sanctions against Antitrust Plaintiffs related to 13 their subpoenas requesting documents from nonparties The Big Ten 14 Conference, The Big Ten Network and Fox Broadcasting Company and 15 denied their motions to compel production by the nonparties. 16 In his order, the Magistrate Judge gave The Big Ten 17 Conference, The Big Ten Network and Fox Broadcasting Company leave 18 to file a motion for sanctions against Antitrust Plaintiffs, and 19 they subsequently did so. The Court notes that, in their 20 opposition to these motions, Antitrust Plaintiffs have raised many 21 of the same arguments that they made in their motion for relief. 22 A hearing on these motions is scheduled for April 18, 2012 before 23 the Magistrate Judge. 24 To the extent that Antitrust Plaintiffs seek relief from the 25 Magistrate Judge's denial of their motions to compel, the Court 26 DENIES their motion for relief. 27 28 Antitrust Plaintiffs have not 1 established that the Magistrate Judge's order was clearly 2 erroneous or contrary to law. 3 The Court also DENIES Antitrust Plaintiffs' motion for relief 4 from the imposition of sanctions, because they are currently 5 seeking the same relief from the Magistrate Judge. 6 Plaintiffs may renew their motion for relief after the Magistrate 7 Judge has issued his decision regarding the pending motions for 8 sanctions. 9 Antitrust IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 Dated: 4/9/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2