Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 RONALD CHINITZ, et al., Case No. 18-cv-05623-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 9 v. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON- DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF 10 INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Defendant.

12 13 14 Before the Court is Defendant Intero Real Estate Services’s motion for relief from a non- 15 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 16 documents in response to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 8 and Requests for Production Nos. 6 and 9. 17 Id. 1. Intero argues that its request is not overbroad and is proportional to the needs of the case. Id. 18 2. Plaintiffs Ruby Mitchell and Edward J. Kelly oppose this motion and argue they have 19 adequately responded to the discovery requests and that additional documents sought by Intero are 20 overbroad and invasive. See Opp’n, ECF 234. 21 A magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order may be modified or set aside if it is 22 “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “[T]he magistrate’s factual 23 determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to 24 determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. 25 Cal. 2010). Having reviewed the briefing and Judge Cousins’s decision, the Court finds no clear 26 error and that Judge Cousins’s legal conclusion was not contrary to law. Judge Cousins found that 27 “[t]he information requested by Intero is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case 1 factual determination. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: July 28, 2021 kom hh ham tn) 6 Se BETH LABSON FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16 & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28