Century Aluminum Company et al v. AGCS Marine Insurance Co.

Filing 241

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 220 Motion FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED AUGUST 23, 2012 ; denying 226 Motion FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED AUG UST 28, 2012 ; denying 236 Motion FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED AUGUST 30, 2012. The Court refers AGCS back to Judge Cousins to address the issue of notification to non-parties. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

CENTURY ALUMINUM CO., et al.,

7
8
9

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 11-cv-02514-YGR
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AGCS MARINE INSURANCE CO.,

10

Defendant.

11
12

Defendant AGCS Marine Insurance Company (“AGCS”) has filed three Motions for

13

Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Orders of Magistrate Judge Cousins (Dkt. Nos. 220, 226 &

14

236), relating to Orders dated: (i) August 23, 2012 (Dkt. No. 206) as clarified on September 5,

15

2012 (Dkt. No. 219); (ii) August 28, 2012 (Dkt. No. 209) as modified on September 13, 2012

16

(Dkt. No. 234); and August 30, 2012 (Dkt. No. 216).

17

The Court, having considered the papers filed in support of these Motions (Dkt. Nos. 220–

18

224, 226–229 & 236–238), and other filings in the record (Dkt. Nos. 209–210, 214–216, 219,

19

234), including the transcript of the hearing on August 22, 2012, HEREBY DENIES each of

20

AGCS’s three Motions for Relief.

21

With respect to the consideration of each of these matters, the Court finds that Magistrate

22

Judge Cousins has reviewed and analyzed the parties’ positions thoroughly, provided more than

23

adequate opportunities for written and oral argument, and evaluated, in conscientious detail, the

24

claims of privilege, burden, and access to additional discovery raised by the parties. AGCS has

25

not persuaded the Court that any legal or equitable reason exists to provide the substantive

26

requested relief.

27

With respect to Judge Cousins Order dated August 23, 2012 (Dkt. No. 206), AGCS

28

requests relief not specifically addressed in the Order, namely, a provision for notification to non-

1

parties. In addition, compliance with each of the Orders is now past due. The Court has reviewed

2

the Joint Discovery Status Report filed on September 17, 2012. (Dkt. No. 240.) As the parties

3

have met and conferred on the issue of AGCS’s timing for compliance, and are scheduled to meet

4

with Judge Cousins on September 19, 2012, the Court declines from ruling on issues of timing for

5

compliance and refers AGCS back to Judge Cousins to address in the first instance the issue of

6

notification to non-parties.

7

This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 220, 226 & 236.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: September 18, 2012

_______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-