Opinion
No. 3:18-cv-01477-JR
11-17-2020
KELLY CAHILL, SARA JOHNSTON, LINDSAY ELIZABETH, and HEATHER HENDER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Defendant.
AMENDED ORDER ,
On March 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued a non-dispositive order granting Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant to produce names and employee identification numbers of the employees and witnesses whose data and workplace complaint documents Defendant previously produced [99]. On April 6, 2020, Defendant filed objections to the Order [101]. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
In accordance with Rule 72(a), "[w]hen a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The standard of review for a non-dispositive order with objections is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (applying the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review for non-dispositive motions). If a ruling on a motion is not determinative of "a party's claim or defense," it is not dispositive and, therefore, is not subject to de novo review as are proposed findings and recommendations for dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
The Court has carefully considered Defendant's objections and concludes that they do not provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Order.
CONCLUSION
The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Russo's Order [99].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 17, 2020.
/s/_________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge