Artis v. John Deere Landscapes, Inc. et al

Filing 93

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE by Hon. William Alsup denying 90 Motion Partial Relief from Nondispositive Magistrate Order.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 HOLLY ARTIS, LATOYA KNIGHT, AND LORI SNAVELY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 No. C 10-05289 WHA Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE v. 13 DEERE & COMPANY and JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES, INC., 14 Defendants. / 15 16 In this Title VII action, plaintiffs challenge a magistrate judge’s discovery order denying 17 plaintiffs’ discovery relating to the Laborer position at Deere Landscapes, Inc. For the following 18 reasons, plaintiffs’ request for partial relief from that order is DENIED. 19 When the magistrate order concerns a nondispositive issue, as is the case here, the district 20 judge must “set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” 21 FRCP 72(a). A “magistrate judge’s decision in such nondispositive matters is entitled to great 22 deference by the district court.” United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 23 (9th Cir. 2001). 24 The discovery dispute arose when plaintiffs sought discovery related to the Laborer 25 position at Deere Landscapes. Plaintiffs argued that the Laborer position was a shipping and 26 receiving position within their proposed class definition. Defendants disagreed. Magistrate 27 Judge Maria-Elena James disagreed as well and denied plaintiffs’ request to compel production of 28 discovery related to the Laborer position (Dkt. No. 74). 1 In plaintiff’s instant FRCP 72(a) motion, they argue that Magistrate Judge James 2 misinterpreted this Court’s prior order denying plaintiff Holley Artis’ motion to amend the 3 complaint to include the Laborer position, (Dkt. No. 69), as dispositive to the discovery dispute. 4 In the prior order, plaintiff Holly Artis was denied the amendments because they were untimely 5 (Dkt. No. 69 at 3). The order did not reach whether those amendments, including the addition of 6 the Laborer position as a shipping and receiving position, would have narrowed or expanded the 7 proposed class (Dkt. No. 69 at 3). 8 Plaintiffs incorrectly suggest that Magistrate Judge James only relied on the prior order. the scope of the class definition (Dkt. No. 74 at 2). While plaintiffs may disagree with Magistrate 11 For the Northern District of California Magistrate Judge James independently found that inclusion of the Laborer position would expand 10 United States District Court 9 Judge James’ finding that the Laborer Position is not a shipping and receiving position, they have 12 not shown that the finding was clearly erroneous. 13 Magistrate Judge James also denied plaintiffs’ discovery because if “Plaintiff believed that 14 information regarding the three job categories [including the Laborer position] was responsive to 15 its RFP [Request for Production] and should have been produced by Defendants, Plaintiffs should 16 have sought relief in conjunction with its prior discovery requests.” Plaintiffs argue that they 17 delayed in seeking discovery relating to the Laborer position because a late deposition clarified 18 the job duties of that position. But plaintiffs could have discovered the job duties from online 19 postings on defendants’ website or with other formal discovery methods. Plaintiffs have not 20 shown that Magistrate Judge James’ finding was clearly erroneous. 21 22 As Magistrate Judge James’ order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the motion requesting partial relief from the order is DENIED. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: November 22, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?