Fleming v. Provest California LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 BRUNO FLEMING, Case No. 21-cv-04462-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 10 PROVEST CALIFORNIA LLC, et al., JUDGE 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 49] 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Bruno Fleming’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive 14 Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and Local Civil 15 Rule 72-2. See ECF No. 49. Plaintiff requests that the Court modify portions of Judge van Keulen’s Order concerning Interrogatory Nos. 14-16 and Requests for Production Nos. 1, 4, 6-8, 16 and 14-20. Id. at 2. 17 A magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order may be modified or set aside if it is 18 “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The magistrate’s factual 19 determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to 20 determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 21 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 22 Having reviewed the briefing and Judge van Keulen’s Order, the Court finds no factual 23 determination that is clearly erroneous and no legal conclusion that is contrary to law. Nor has 24 Plaintiff attempted to identify any. Plaintiff instead seeks a new opportunity to argue propriety of 25 its discovery requests. But the “clearly erroneous and contrary to law” standard is deferential— 26 the district judge may not simply substitute his or her judgment for that of the magistrate judge. 27 Grimes v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 || Dated: September 1, 2022 kom Lh ham ty) 5 oo BETH LABSON FREEMAN 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12 © 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28