Opinion
18-cv-05623-BLF
09-08-2021
RONALD CHINITZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE [RE: ECF NO. 259]
BETH LAB SON FREEMAN, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Intero Real Estate Services' motion for relief from a non-dispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72-2. See ECF No. 259 (“Motion”). Intero takes issue with Judge Cousins' denial of its request to serve subpoenas on non-party Zillow Group, Inc., which Intero claims are necessary to show that Plaintiffs took steps in connection with selling their homes. Id. at 1. Intero argues that the request is proportional to the needs of the case, and that Judge Cousins' finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous. Id.
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). After reviewing Judge Cousins' order and Intero's Motion, the Court finds no clear error and that his legal conclusions are not contrary to law. Judge Cousins found that Intel failed to demonstrate “good cause” for the request, as required by Rule 16, and that the request was a “fishing expedition” rather than proportional to the needs of the case because Intel should be able to obtain the requested information itself. ECF No. 245 at 1-2. Judge Cousins applied the correct legal standard, and the Court finds no clear error in his consideration of the factors related to proportionality of the discovery request or untimeliness of the request under Rule 16. Accordingly, Intero's Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.