Opinion
18-cv-05623-BLF
07-28-2021
RONALD CHINITZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BETH LAB SON FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant Intero Real Estate Services's motion for relief from a non-dispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72-2. See Mot., ECF 230. Intero challenges Judge Cousins's denial of its motion to compel documents in response to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 8 and Requests for Production Nos. 6 and 9. Id. 1. Intero argues that its request is not overbroad and is proportional to the needs of the case. Id. 2. Plaintiffs Ruby Mitchell and Edward J. Kelly oppose this motion and argue they have adequately responded to the discovery requests and that additional documents sought by Intero are overbroad and invasive. See Opp'n, ECF 234.
A magistrate judge's non-dispositive pretrial order may be modified or set aside if it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). “[T]he magistrate's factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate's legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Having reviewed the briefing and Judge Cousins's decision, the Court finds no clear error and that Judge Cousins's legal conclusion was not contrary to law. Judge Cousins found that “[t]he information requested by Intero is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case under FRCP 26.” See Order, ECF 229. Intero cannot come to this court for a do-over on the factual determination.
IT IS SO ORDERED.