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

Filing 64

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

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?