Sharma et al v. BMW of North America LLC

Filing 144

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Plaintiffs' Objections are denied, without prejudice to plaintiffs' filing, before Magistrate Judge Westmore and no later than April 15, 2016, a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 1, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MONITA SHARMA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-02274-MMC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Re: Dkt. No. 143

12
Before the Court is plaintiffs' "Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order

13
14

of Magistrate Judge" ("Objections"), filed March 29, 2016, by which plaintiffs object to

15

Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore's order of March 15, 2016, to the extent such

16

order denies in part plaintiffs' request for discovery regarding electronic components

17

other than the three components identified by name in the operative complaint. Having

18

read and considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.
Plaintiffs argue that certain findings set forth in the challenged order are based on

19
20

"inaccurate information and misrepresentations" made by defendant (see Pls.' Objections

21

at 1:6-15), and, consequently, are clearly erroneous. Plaintiffs do not contend, however,

22

that the challenged findings are erroneous based on the record as presented to

23

Magistrate Judge Westmore, but, rather, that said findings should be found erroneous

24

based on evidence submitted for the first time in support of the instant Objections. (See

25

Pls' Objections at 1:11-15; 3:3 - 4:6; 5:4-15.) Under such circumstances, plaintiffs'

26

Objections are, in essence, a motion for reconsideration based on newly-offered

27

evidence.

28

//

1
Accordingly, plaintiffs' Objections are hereby DENIED, without prejudice to
2
plaintiffs' filing, before Magistrate Judge Westmore and no later than April 15, 2016, a
3
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2).
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: April 1, 2016
7

MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2