Kornhauser v. United States of America

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 50 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/29/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SAMUEL KORNHAUSER,

Case No. 14-cv-05610-HSG

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: Dkt. No. 50

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
On January 22, 2016, Plaintiff Samuel Kornhauser moved to set aside Magistrate Judge

12
13

Kim’s order, Dkt. No. 42, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further

14

responses to interrogatories and production of documents. See Dkt. No. 50. Defendant has not

15

filed a response. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a district judge may set aside a magistrate

18

judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R.

19

Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The magistrate’s factual determinations are

20

reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether

21

they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

22

“When the court reviews the magistrate’s determination of relevance in a discovery order, the

23

Court must review the magistrate’s order with an eye toward the broad standard of relevance in the

24

discovery context. Thus, the standard of review in most instances is not the explicit statutory

25

language, but the clearly implicit standard of abuse of discretion.” Id. at 348 (internal quotation

26

marks omitted). The Court can overturn the “magistrate’s factual determinations only if the court

27

reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (citations and

28

internal quotation marks omitted). “This standard is extremely deferential and the [m]agistrate’s

1

rulings should be considered the final decisions of the [d]istrict [c]ourt.” Otey v. CrowdFlower,

2

Inc., No. 12-CV-05524-JST, 2013 WL 3456942, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) (internal quotation

3

marks omitted) (alterations in the original).

4
5

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s order and finds no clear error of fact or

6

legal conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the Magistrate

7

Judge’s order is DENIED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/29/2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2