Williamson v. Google Inc.

Filing 267

ORDER DENYING 263 DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REFER MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF EXPERT REPORTS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/10/2018. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-00966-BLF
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
GOOGLE LLC’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO REFER MOTION TO
STRIKE PORTIONS OF EXPERT
REPORTS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[Re: ECF 263]

12
13

Before the Court is Defendant Google LLC’s (Google”) administrative motion to refer its

14
15

motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s expert reports to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins

16

(“Motion to Strike”). Mot., ECF 263. Plaintiff Williamson filed an opposition. Opp’n, ECF 264-

17

4.
Google argues that all disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery have been referred

18
19

to Judge Cousins. Mot. 1. On this basis, Google asserts that its Motion to Strike falls within

20

“Judge Cousins’ assigned purview.” Id. Williamson counters that Google’s Motion to Strike is “a

21

dispositive motion, not a discovery motion, and should therefore be heard” by the undersigned

22

judge. Opp’n 1. Williamson further argues that “substantive motions to strike expert reports” that

23

“would be dispositive of claims against entire products” have not been referred to Judge Cousins.

24

See id.

25

Generally, a magistrate judge lacks authority to “determine” motions that are considered to

26

be “dispositive.” See Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015). After reviewing the

27

parties’ submissions, while a close call, the Court finds that Google’s Motion to Strike is

28

potentially dispositive. The Court therefore DENIES Google’s request to refer the Motion to

1
2

Strike to Judge Cousins.
Google’s Motion to Strike is essentially a motion in limine, which the Court generally

3

limits to five pages. Accordingly, Google may refile a noticed motion with an opening brief that

4

does not exceed five (5) pages. Williamson may file an opposition brief that does not exceed five

5

(5) pages. Google may file a reply brief that is limited to two (2) pages. The format of the text

6

shall comply with the Civil Local Rules and the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Civil Cases.

7

The parties do not request to shorten the briefing time, and thus the briefing schedule provided by

8

Civil Local Rule 7-3 shall apply. The Court may submit Google’s motion without oral argument

9

upon reviewing the parties’ briefing. Papers submitted in connection to the instant administration
motion (ECF 263) or the joint letter brief (ECF 259-4) presented to Judge Cousins will not be

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

considered.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: July 10, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2