MicroTechnologies, LLC v. Autonomy, Inc. et al

Filing 56

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Re: 54 Sushovan Hussain's Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MICROTECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Case No. 5:15-cv-02220-RMW

Plaintiff,
13
v.

ORDER RE: SUSHOVAN HUSSAIN'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15

AUTONOMY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 54

16
17

On March 28, 2016, non-party Sushovan Hussain filed a Motion for Relief from Non-

18

Dispositive Pretrial Order of a Magistrate Judge. Dkt. No. 54. Hussain, who lives in England,

19

objects to the magistrate judge’s March 14, 2016 order, Dkt. No. 53, which granted the Autonomy

20

defendants’ motion for this court to issue a letter rogatory to the Royal Courts of Justice in

21

England requesting the deposition of Hussain. On March 16, 2016, after reviewing the magistrate

22

judge’s order, the undersigned judge issued the Autonomy defendants’ proposed letter of request

23

with minor modifications. The original copy of the letter was sent to the Autonomy defendants’

24

counsel for transmission to the Royal Courts of Justice, but, due to an unintended delay, the letter

25

was not posted to this court’s docket until after Hussain filed the instant motion. See Dkt. No. 55.

26

Because this court has already issued the letter rogatory, Hussain’s objections to the magistrate

27

judge’s order are now moot.

28

1
5:15-cv-02220-RMW
ORDER RE: HUSSAIN MOT. FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
RS

1

Even if this court had received Hussain’s objections before the court issued the letter

2

rogatory, the court would not find a sufficient basis to overturn the magistrate judge’s order.

3

Requests for relief from a non-dispositive order of a magistrate judge are reviewed pursuant to

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).1 In reviewing a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive orders,

5

the district judge may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the magistrate judge. Grimes v.

6

City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).
This court finds that Hussain’s objections should be overruled. Hussain’s argument that the

7
8

magistrate judge did not properly evaluate proportionality is unpersuasive. The magistrate judge

9

examined each proportionality factor under the recently updated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(1) and determined that the requested discovery is proportional to the needs of this case. Dkt.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

No. 53 at 3-4. The magistrate judge specifically noted that “Hussain does not assert that the

12

expense of preparing for and sitting through the deposition would be significant relative to his

13

personal wealth.” Id. at 3. The authorities that Hussain cites do not compel the conclusion that the

14

magistrate judge’s analysis was incorrect. Indeed, one case cited by Hussain rebuts Hussain’s

15

argument that the burden to show proportionality rests entirely on the party seeking discovery.

16

Rather, “[t]he burden of demonstrating relevance remains on the party seeking discovery, but the

17

newly-revised rule ‘does not place on [that] party . . . the burden of addressing all proportionality

18

considerations.’” Henry v. Morgan’s Hotel Group, Inc., No. 15–CV–1789 (ER)(JLC), 2016 WL

19

303114, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee’s notes

20

to 2015 amendment).

21

Hussain offers no support for his argument that “HP expects that Mr. Hussain will invoke

22

his Fifth Amendment rights . . . and likely intends to use that fact to . . . suggest (improperly) that

23

he is liable in HP’s civil suit in England.”2 Dkt. No. 54 at 4 (emphasis added). Finally, while

24

Hussain argues that the order fails to consider how Hussain’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment

25
26
27
28

1

“The district judge in the case must consider timely objections [to a magistrate’s order] and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a).
2
Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) is the indirect parent of defendant Autonomy, Inc. Dkt. No. 11 ¶ 10.
2
5:15-cv-02220-RMW
ORDER RE: HUSSAIN MOT. FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
RS

1

rights affects proportionality, Hussain did not argue before the magistrate that proportionality

2

required consideration of his Fifth Amendment rights. “District courts need not, and ordinarily

3

should not address arguments raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s

4

order.” United States v. Real Prop. & Improvements Located at 2366 San Pablo Ave., Berkeley,

5

California, No. 13-CV-02027-JST, 2014 WL 325151, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014).

6

For the reasons stated above, the magistrate judge’s order is AFFIRMED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: April 6, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

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

3
5:15-cv-02220-RMW
ORDER RE: HUSSAIN MOT. FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
RS