From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Lyft, Inc. Sec. Litig.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
May 31, 2023
19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D. Cal. May. 31, 2023)

Opinion

19-cv-02690-HSG

05-31-2023

IN RE LYFT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL DISCOVERY ORDER RE: DKT. NO. 365

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In May 2023, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied state-plaintiff objectors' request for discovery. See Dkt. No. 362. State-plaintiff objectors then filed a motion for relief from Judge Beeler's non-dispositive pretrial discovery order. See Dkt. No. 365. A pretrial order by a magistrate judge will be reversed only if it “is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Beeler's order, state-plaintiffs' motion, lead Plaintiff's opposition, and the relevant legal authorities. Judge Beeler's order is well-reasoned and thorough. The Court affirms the non-dispositive order because it is not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for relief from Judge Beeler's non-dispositive pretrial discovery order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re Lyft, Inc. Sec. Litig.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
May 31, 2023
19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D. Cal. May. 31, 2023)
Case details for

In re Lyft, Inc. Sec. Litig.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE LYFT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: May 31, 2023

Citations

19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D. Cal. May. 31, 2023)