Federal Trade Commission v. DIRECTV, Inc. et al

Filing 139

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 126 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

DIRECTV, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 126

On March 30, 2016, non-party Paula Selis filed a motion for nondispositive relief from the

12
13

Magistrate Judge’s order directing Ms. Selis to sit for a three-hour oral deposition. See Dkt. No.

14

122.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

marks omitted).

2

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

3

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

4

order is DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/22/2016

7
8
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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