Bryan et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al

Filing 284

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED MARCH 11, 2016 267 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES RIDGWAY, et al.,

Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED
MARCH 11, 2016

9
10

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. No. 267
12
13

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has filed a motion for relief from a nondispositive

14

pretrial order of a magistrate judge. Docket No. 267. Defendant seeks disclosure of unredacted

15

copies (i.e. with names and addresses) of all survey responses from a 2014 survey that plaintiffs’

16

counsel conducted among class members. On March 11, 2016, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C.

17

Spero issued an order following a hearing on the discovery dispute. Docket No. 263. Defendant

18

then moved for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a),

19

and Civil Local Rule 72-2. Docket No. 276 at 1-2.

20

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers, the transcript from the March 11, 2016

21

hearing, and Judge Spero’s order. The Court finds nothing in the hearing transcript or in Judge

22

Spero’s order that is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

23

Moreover, the Court agrees that Judge Spero’s order strikes the appropriate balance between the

24

competing interests at stake. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for relief.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge