Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING (27) MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3:16-mc-80062-JSC.Associated Cases: 3:16-mc-80062-JSC, 3:16-mc-80076-JSC(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYERS
RETIREMENT FUND, ET AL.,

16-mc-80062-JSC (WHA)
16-mc-80076-JSC (WHA)

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case Nos.

v.

14

TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL.,

15

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RELIEF FROM ORDERS OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant.
/

16
17

The present discovery dispute arises out of a putative securities class action pending in

18

the United States District Court for Minnesota. Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit following the

19

publication of a negative report about defendant Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. by Gotham City

20

Research, LLC, an investor who shorted Tile Shop stock. Plaintiffs and defendants served

21

third-party subpoenas on Gotham seeking documents and depositions. Gotham failed to comply

22

with the subpoenas, and the parties filed separate actions to compel Gotham’s compliance. See

23

Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No. 16-80062

24

(Plaintiffs’ action); Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No.

25

16-80076 (Defendants’ action). Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted plaintiffs’

26

motion to compel production of Gotham’s sources of information and denied defendants’

27

motion to compel the subpoenas seeking documents and a deposition. Gotham subsequently

28

filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Corley denied. Now, Gotham and defendants
seek relief from Judge Corley’s orders.

1

The Court has reviewed the orders of Judge Corley and completely agrees with them.

2

To the extent this motion is an “appeal,” the orders by Judge Corley are affirmed for the reasons

3

stated by her. To the extent this motion is one for de novo review, this order adopts her findings

4

and conclusions as its own. This will eliminate any issue with respect to the parties’ ability to

5

pursue an appeal with our court of appeals.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: August 3, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2