Perez v. Monster Inc. et al

Filing 102

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen denying 96 Defendants' Renewed Motion for Expedited Hearing; and denying 98 Defendants' Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BENJAMIN PEREZ,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
MONSTER INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
RENEWED MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
HEARING; AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Docket Nos. 96, 98

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No. 15-cv-03885-EMC

13
14

Currently pending before the Court are two motions: (1) Defendants’ renewed motion for

15

an expedited hearing on their pending motion to stay, see Docket No. 96 (motion), and (2)

16

Defendants’ motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of Judge Ryu. See Docket No.

17

98 (motion). The Court addresses each of these motions below.

18

I. DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING

19

Defendants have filed a motion to stay proceedings in the instant case based on a proposed

20

settlement of a class action currently pending before an Illinois state court. See Docket No. 82

21

(motion). Previously, Defendants asked for their stay motion to be heard on shortened time, but

22

the Court denied that motion and set the hearing on the stay motion for August 18, 2016. See

23

Docket No. 86 (order). Defendants have now filed a motion asking for an immediate stay or,

24

alternatively, for the hearing on the stay motion be advanced to August 4, 2016 – primarily

25

because Judge Ryu had ordered Best Buy to produce documents by August 5, 2016. See Docket

26

No. 95 (DMR order). That August 5 deadline has now been extended by an order from this Court

27

to August 12, 2016. See Docket No. 101 (order).

28

Defendants’ alternative request for relief is moot since the Court has now extended the

1

production deadline to August 12. However, as noted above, Defendants are also seeking an

2

immediate stay, and this request for relief is still ripe even with the extended August 12 production

3

deadline. Defendants’ request for an immediate stay is denied. The Court will not halt the

4

discovery process in its entirety, especially as Defendants’ motion to stay will be heard soon and

5

Defendants’ prejudice argument is dependent on the Illinois state court approving the proposed

6

class action settlement. However, recognizing that there is some burden to Defendants, the Court

7

shall no longer require Defendants to produce documents on August 12. Instead, the Court orders

8

the parties to meet and confer and devise a concrete discovery plan by August 12 (e.g., addressing

9

what categories of documents shall be produced and on what specific timeline, which may include

although actual production will be dependent on how the Court resolves the stay motion on the

12
For the Northern District of California

a phased or rolling production). Defendants shall be prepared to begin production on August 18,

11

United States District Court

10

merits.

13

II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER

14

Defendants have moved for relief with respect to Judge Ryu’s order of July 29, 2016. See

15
16

Docket No. 95 (DMR order). Best Buy had asked Judge Ryu to extend its production deadline

17

from July 31, 2016, to August 26, 2016. See Docket No. 93 (joint letter). Judge Ryu ordered Best

18

Buy to produce documents by August 5. See Docket No. 95 (DMR order).
Defendants’ motion for relief is denied. The motion is moot in light of this order. In any

19
20

event, the Court also notes that Defendants have failed to show that Judge Ryu committed clear

21

error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (providing that a district court “must consider timely objections

22

and modify or set aside any part of the [magistrate judge] order that is clearly erroneous or is

23

contrary to law”); see also Civ. L.R. 72-2 (providing that a response to a motion for relief from a

24

nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge need not be filed unless ordered by the district

25

court).

26
27
28

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions are denied but Defendants are provided the
limited relief described above. The Court’s ruling herein does not resolve in any way the motion
2

1
2

to stay set for hearing on August 18.
This order disposes of Docket Nos. 96 and 98.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7
8

Dated: August 8, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3