Ho v. Pinsukanjana, et al.

Filing 81

ORDER DENYING MOTION 80 FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RITA C HO,

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-06520-PJH
Plaintiff,

8

MARK PINSUKANJANA, et al.,
Defendants.

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. No. 80
12
13
14

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2 for relief from
a discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson.

15

A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order is conducted under a

16

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate

17

judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is “entitled to great deference.” Doubt v. NCR

18

Corp., No. 09–cv–5917–SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A

19

district court should not overturn a magistrate judge’s order simply because it “might have

20

weighed differently the various interests and equities,” but rather “must ascertain whether

21

the order was contrary to law.” See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.

22

2004).

23
24
25
26
27
28

The court finds nothing in Judge Hixson’s order that is erroneous or contrary to
law. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and the motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 8, 2019
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge