Opinion
19-cv-02690-HSG
09-01-2021
IN RE LYFT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
RE: DKT. NO. 168
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 15, 2021, Plaintiff Rick Keiner filed a motion for relief from a discovery order by Magistrate Laurel Beeler concerning documents relating to reports of sexual assaults. See Dkt. Nos. 168 (“Mot.”), 163 (“Order”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a district judge may set aside a magistrate judge's non-dispositive pretrial order only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The 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). “The Court can overturn the “magistrate's factual determinations only if the court reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “This standard is extremely deferential and the [m]agistrate's rulings should be considered the final decisions of the [d]istrict [c]ourt.” Otey v. CrowdFlower, Inc., No. 12-cv-05524-JST, 2013 WL 3456942, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in the original).
Having reviewed Plaintiffs contentions and the relevant authority, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown that the Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law and accordingly DENIES the motion for relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.