LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. Rocket Lawyer, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 13 Motion (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2015)

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

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,

Case No. 15-MC-80003-NC (LHK)

Plaintiff,
13

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

v.
14
15

ROCKET LAWYER INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 13

Defendant.
16
17

Plaintiff LegalZoom.com (“LegalZoom”) seeks discovery from Google, which is not a

18

party to this suit. Plaintiff served Google with a subpoena, and subsequently moved to compel

19

Google’s production of several categories of documents. ECF No. 1. Magistrate Judge Cousins

20

denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel, finding that Plaintiff had failed to take such “reasonable

21

steps” as are required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to obtain discovery from non-

22

parties. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff now moves for relief from Judge Cousins’ order denying Plaintiff’s

23

motion to compel. ECF No. 13.

24

LegalZoom’s subpoena seeks from Google, for a four-year period, “any and all

25

documents” relating to Rocket Lawyer “free” advertisements, “any and all communications”

26

between Google and Rocket Lawyer relating to Rocket Lawyer “free” advertisements, and “any

27
28

1
15-MC-80003-NC (LHK)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

1

and all documents” relating to studies managed or performed by a Google entity, Google

2

Ventures, concerning Rocket Lawyer “free” advertisements. ECF No. 10 at 4. Judge Cousins

3

denied LegalZoom’s motion to compel because LegalZoom had failed to explain why the

4

discovery LegalZoom sought from Google was unobtainable from a party to the suit: the

5

Defendant, Rocket Lawyer. Id. LegalZoom merely asserted that there were “significant gaps”

6

and “irregularities” in Rocket Lawyer’s prior production of documents, and Judge Cousins found

7

that “[d]espite extensive conferring and briefing, LegalZoom has not specified the parameters of

8

the ‘gaps’ that Google needs to fill.” Id. Moreover, Judge Cousins rejected LegalZoom’s

9

contention that it “should be entitled to review documents in Google’s possession as a cross-check
against any production previously made by Rocket Lawyer,” finding that the Federal Rules of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Civil Procedure create no such entitlement. Id.

12

A magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial matter will be modified or set

13

aside only if “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P.

14

72(a); Grimes v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). In reviewing for clear

15

error, the district judge may not simply substitute his or her judgment for that of the magistrate

16

judge. See Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241. Rather, a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive ruling is clearly

17

erroneous only when the district court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake

18

has been committed.” Burdick v. Comm’r Internal Rev. Serv., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir.

19

1992); see United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that a

20

magistrate judge’s decisions with regard to discovery disputes and other non-dispositive matters

21

are entitled to “great deference”).

22

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions before Judge Cousins in connection with

23

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6, the transcript of the February 25, 2015 hearing on

24

the motion to compel before Judge Cousins, ECF No. 12, Judge Cousins’ order, ECF No. 10, and

25

the applicable law, the Court finds that there is no support for Plaintiff’s position in either the

26

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or case law. See Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D.

27
28

2
15-MC-80003-NC (LHK)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

1

575, 577 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“There is simply no reason to burden nonparties when the documents

2

sought are in possession of the party defendant.”). Therefore, the Court concludes that

3

LegalZoom has failed to demonstrate that Judge Cousins’ order was clearly erroneous or contrary

4

to law. Judge Cousins’ ruling is entitled to deference, and LegalZoom’s arguments fail to leave

5

the Court with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Burdick, 979

6

F.2d at 1370. Accordingly, LegalZoom’s motion for relief from Judge Cousins’ order is hereby

7

DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: April 15, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

3
15-MC-80003-NC (LHK)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE