Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation

N.D. California

Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation

DecidedJanuary 12, 2021

Docket5:18-cv-07597

StatusUnknown

This text of Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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 DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 10 QUORA, INC., JUDGE 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF 209]

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jeri Connor’s motion for relief from a non-dispositive pretrial 14 order of Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72-2. See Mot., 15 ECF 209. Ms. Connor challenges Judge Cousins’s denial of her motion to compel further 16 document production on the basis that he failed to apply the three-part test for implied waiver as 17 set forth in Home Indemnity Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller, 43 F.3d 1322, 1326 (9th Cir. 18 1995). Mot. 1. After the Court ordered Quora to respond to Ms. Connor’s motion, Quora filed an 19 opposition brief arguing that Judge Cousins correctly decided that Quora did not impliedly waive 20 its work product privilege. See Opp’n, ECF 189. 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 underlying order, the Court finds no clear error and 26 that Judge Cousins’s legal conclusion was not contrary to law. Judge Cousins found that Quora 27 did not waive the privilege by filing the selective testimony of Zhe Fu, Paula Griffin, and Jesse 1 not reference or rely upon the documents in question in their declarations. Jd. And finally, he 2 || found that Ms. Connor should be able to understand and rebut the testimony without piercing 3 privileged information. /d. These findings satisfy the three-part test as articulated in Home 4 || Indemnity Co. 43 F.3d at 1326. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Connor’s motion for relief. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || Dated: January 12, 2021 kom Lh ham thn 8 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

= 17

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 10 QUORA, INC., JUDGE 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF 209]

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jeri Connor’s motion for relief from a non-dispositive pretrial 14 order of Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72-2. See Mot., 15 ECF 209. Ms. Connor challenges Judge Cousins’s denial of her motion to compel further 16 document production on the basis that he failed to apply the three-part test for implied waiver as 17 set forth in Home Indemnity Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller, 43 F.3d 1322, 1326 (9th Cir. 18 1995). Mot. 1. After the Court ordered Quora to respond to Ms. Connor’s motion, Quora filed an 19 opposition brief arguing that Judge Cousins correctly decided that Quora did not impliedly waive 20 its work product privilege. See Opp’n, ECF 189. 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 underlying order, the Court finds no clear error and 26 that Judge Cousins’s legal conclusion was not contrary to law. Judge Cousins found that Quora 27 did not waive the privilege by filing the selective testimony of Zhe Fu, Paula Griffin, and Jesse 1 not reference or rely upon the documents in question in their declarations. Jd. And finally, he 2 || found that Ms. Connor should be able to understand and rebut the testimony without piercing 3 privileged information. /d. These findings satisfy the three-part test as articulated in Home 4 || Indemnity Co. 43 F.3d at 1326. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Connor’s motion for relief. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || Dated: January 12, 2021 kom Lh ham thn 8 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

= 17

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conner-v-quora-inc-a-delaware-corporation-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack