In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name Likeness Licensing Litigation

Filing 75

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ANTITRUST PLAINTIFFS' 65 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME
AND LIKENESS LICENSING
LITIGATION,

No. C 09-1967 CW
No. MC 11-80300 CW
No. MC 12-80020 CW

6

________________________________/

ORDER ON ANTITRUST
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM
NON-DISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9

On March 8, 2012, Antitrust Plaintiffs filed a motion
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

requesting relief from a non-dispositive pretrial order entered by
11
a Magistrate Judge on February 27, 2012, in which the Magistrate
12
Judge issued sanctions against Antitrust Plaintiffs related to
13
their subpoenas requesting documents from nonparties The Big Ten
14
Conference, The Big Ten Network and Fox Broadcasting Company and
15
denied their motions to compel production by the nonparties.
16
In his order, the Magistrate Judge gave The Big Ten
17
Conference, The Big Ten Network and Fox Broadcasting Company leave
18
to file a motion for sanctions against Antitrust Plaintiffs, and
19
they subsequently did so.

The Court notes that, in their

20
opposition to these motions, Antitrust Plaintiffs have raised many
21
of the same arguments that they made in their motion for relief.
22
A hearing on these motions is scheduled for April 18, 2012 before
23
the Magistrate Judge.
24
To the extent that Antitrust Plaintiffs seek relief from the
25
Magistrate Judge's denial of their motions to compel, the Court
26
DENIES their motion for relief.
27
28

Antitrust Plaintiffs have not

1

established that the Magistrate Judge's order was clearly

2

erroneous or contrary to law.

3

The Court also DENIES Antitrust Plaintiffs' motion for relief

4

from the imposition of sanctions, because they are currently

5

seeking the same relief from the Magistrate Judge.

6

Plaintiffs may renew their motion for relief after the Magistrate

7

Judge has issued his decision regarding the pending motions for

8

sanctions.

9

Antitrust

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated: 4/9/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

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