Center for Food Safety et al v. Vilsack et al

Filing 84

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
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

Defendants.
On May 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted in part and denied in part

13

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel completion of the administrative record, or in the alternative, for

14

leave to conduct limited discovery. Dkt. No. 77. On May 17, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for

15

relief from Judge Westmore’s order. Dkt. No. 81. On May 31, 2017, Plaintiffs file an opposition.

16

Dkt. No. 83. The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Westmore’s order, Defendants’ motion,

17

Plaintiffs’ opposition, and the relevant legal authorities. Judge Westmore’s order is well-reasoned

18

and thorough. The Court affirms the non-dispositive order because it is not “clearly erroneous or

19

contrary to law.” See Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

Moreover, the Court declines to stay proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the

21

mandamus petition referenced by Defendants, see Dkt. No. 81 at 5, because Defendants have not

22

shown that they are entitled to a stay under the controlling four-factor test, see Nken v. Holder, 556

23

U.S. 418, 425 (2009). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for relief from Judge

24

Westmore’s non-dispositive pretrial order.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 6/19/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge