Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services

Filing 260


Download PDF
Case 5:18-cv-05623-BLF Document 260 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 RONALD CHINITZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 v. 10 INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 18-cv-05623-BLF Defendant. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE [Re: ECF No. 259] 12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Intero Real Estate Services’ motion for relief from a non- 14 dispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 15 72-2. See ECF No. 259 (“Motion”). Intero takes issue with Judge Cousins’ denial of its request to 16 serve subpoenas on non-party Zillow Group, Inc., which Intero claims are necessary to show that 17 Plaintiffs took steps in connection with selling their homes. Id. at 1. Intero argues that the request 18 is proportional to the needs of the case, and that Judge Cousins’ finding to the contrary is clearly 19 erroneous. Id. 20 A magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order may be modified or set aside if it is 21 “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “[T]he magistrate’s factual 22 determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to 23 determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 24 (N.D. Cal. 2010). After reviewing Judge Cousins’ order and Intero’s Motion, the Court finds no 25 clear error and that his legal conclusions are not contrary to law. Judge Cousins found that Intel 26 failed to demonstrate “good cause” for the request, as required by Rule 16, and that the request 27 was a “fishing expedition” rather than proportional to the needs of the case because Intel should be 28 able to obtain the requested information itself. ECF No. 245 at 1-2. Judge Cousins applied the Case 5:18-cv-05623-BLF Document 260 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2 1 correct legal standard, and the Court finds no clear error in his consideration of the factors related 2 to proportionality of the discovery request or untimeliness of the request under Rule 16. 3 Accordingly, Intero’s Motion is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 8 Dated: September 8, 2021 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?