Center for Food Safety et al v. Vilsack et al
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING DEFENDANTS 81 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
TOM VILSACK, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-01590-HSG
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 81
On May 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel completion of the administrative record, or in the alternative, for
leave to conduct limited discovery. Dkt. No. 77. On May 17, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for
relief from Judge Westmore’s order. Dkt. No. 81. On May 31, 2017, Plaintiffs file an opposition.
Dkt. No. 83. The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Westmore’s order, Defendants’ motion,
Plaintiffs’ opposition, and the relevant legal authorities. Judge Westmore’s order is well-reasoned
and thorough. The Court affirms the non-dispositive order because it is not “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” See Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991).
Moreover, the Court declines to stay proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the
mandamus petition referenced by Defendants, see Dkt. No. 81 at 5, because Defendants have not
shown that they are entitled to a stay under the controlling four-factor test, see Nken v. Holder, 556
U.S. 418, 425 (2009). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for relief from Judge
Westmore’s non-dispositive pretrial order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
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?