Michael Malone v. eBay, Inc.

Filing 101

ORDER overruling 97 Objection to Order of Magistrate Judge Seeborg. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 9/19/2008. (jflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

**E-Filed 9/19/08**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE EBAY ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Case Number C 07-1882 JF (RS) ORDER1 OVERRULING OBJECTION TO ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE SEEBORG [re: doc. no. 97]

Plaintiffs in this putative class action object to Magistrate Judge Seeborg's order of August 29, 2008, which clarified an earlier order regarding a motion to compel as it related to Plaintiffs' document request number 29. Judge Seeborg's clarifying order stated that "at this junction, contracts and agreements are the only materials that are to be produced, and that includes those pertaining to PayPal. The parties are then to meet and confer on what, if any, `back-up' documentation should be produced and any further disputes may proceed in the ordinary course by noticed motion." Order at 1, Aug. 29, 2008 (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs argue that these discovery instructions are inconsistent with document request number 29, because that request seeks discovery regarding the reasoning behind certain

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

C a s e No. C 07-1882 JF (RS) O R D E R OVERRULING OBJECTION TO ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE SEEBORG ( JF L C 1 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

contractual policies, not the contracts or agreements themselves. However, Judge Seeborg's clarifying order states that discovery of such related documentation can be addressed in a future meet and confer between the parties, and that any further disputes related to document request number 29 can be resolved by noticed motion. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Judge Seeborg's order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' objection is overruled. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2008 __________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

2
C a s e No. C 07-1882 JF (RS) O R D E R OVERRULING OBJECTION TO ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE SEEBORG ( JF L C 1 )

1 2 3 4

This Order was served on the following persons: Beverly Tse [e-mail]

Christine Pedigo Bartholomew [e-mail], [e-mail] Daniel Hume [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

5 David E. Kovel 6 I. Stephen Rabin 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
C a s e No. C 07-1882 JF (RS) O R D E R OVERRULING OBJECTION TO ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE SEEBORG ( JF L C 1 )

Jeff D Friedman [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Jeffrey Squire [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph P. Garland Joseph V. McBride Julie Dawn Wood

Michael Andrew McShane Michael Frederick Tubach Shana E. Scarlett

[e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas Patrick Brown