Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc. et al

Filing 43

Order by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denying 40 Motion for Relief from Judge Lloyd's Non-Dispositive Order. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ISAAC RODRIGUEZ,

Case No. 14-cv-01508-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

[Re: ECF 40]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER OF A
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13

On April 29, 2015, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd issued an Order on the parties’

14

Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1, in which Judge Lloyd granted Plaintiff’s request to compel

15

Defendant to produce the names, last known addresses, and telephone numbers of putative class

16

members. See ECF 37 at 2, 6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Civil Local

17

Rule 72-2, Defendant moves for relief from this Order. Plaintiff opposes.

18

Under Rule 72(a), a party may seek relief from the non-dispositive order of a Magistrate

19

Judge when that Order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”; see also Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp.,

20

2008 WL 3287035, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2008). Defendant has not met its burden to show that

21

Judge Lloyd’s Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Rather, Judge Lloyd’s well-reasoned

22

Order is consistent with many other decisions made in this district granting classwide discovery

23

regarding putative class member contact information, pursuant to an opt-out procedure. See, e.g.,

24

Bell v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2014 WL 985829, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2014); see also Willner v.

25

Manpower, Inc., 2013 WL 1729771, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013) (finding an order granting the

26

disclosure of putative class member contact information, subject to an opt-out, was “amply

27

supported by Ninth Circuit authority”).

28

The Court finds that Defendant Nike has failed to show that Judge Lloyd’s Order was

1

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As such, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for relief

2

from Judge Lloyd’s Order on Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2