Treez, Inc. et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 64

ORDER (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2024)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TREEZ, INC., et al.,

Case No. 22-cv-07027-RS

Plaintiffs,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER

12
13

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiffs noticed a motion before the undersigned “to enforce court orders and

17

for sanctions” involving discovery matters previously referred to a magistrate judge. The motion

18

does not seek review of any order of the magistrate judge, and is therefore appropriately addressed

19

to the magistrate judge in the first instance. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a “renotice” of the motion

20

and a proposed order that appear to reflect their understanding that the motion will be decided by

21

the magistrate judge. For clarity of the record, the motion appearing at Dkt. No. 60 is within the

22

scope of the prior referral of all discovery disputes to the magistrate judge.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: March 27, 2024
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge