Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JERI CONNOR, Case No. 18-cv-07597-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 9 v. FROM DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 10 QUORA, INC., NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief from Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins’s Order Re 14 Order of Discovery Brief. See Mot., ECF 171. Under this district’s Civil Local Rules, the Court 15 may deny a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge “by written 16 order at any time, but may not grant it without first giving the opposing party an opportunity to 17 respond.” Civ. L.R. 72-2. Accordingly, the Court REQUESTS Defendant Quora, Inc. file its 18 response to Plaintiff’s motion on or before November 2, 2020. 19 Quora is requested to direct the Court to the evidence and argument submitted to the 20 Magistrate Judge demonstrating that it retained the consultant in anticipation of litigation as 21 required by FRCP 26(b)(4)(B). Specifically, Quora must demonstrate evidence showing when the 22 consultant was retained and the circumstances of his relationship with Quora at that time, or 23 explain why Rule 26 does not require such disclosure. Quora shall also address the standards set 24 forth in In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 296 F. Supp. 3d 1230, 1245 25 (D. Or. 2017) and U.S. Inspection Services, Inc. v. NL Engineered Solutions, LLC, 268 F.R.D. 26 614, 618 (N.D. Cal 2010). 27 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 || Dated: October 26, 2020 kom Lh ham tn) 4 ee BETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 © 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28