In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE LYFT INC. SECURITIES Case No. 19-cv-02690-HSG LITIGATION 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE 9 PRETRIAL ORDER 10 Re: Dkt. No. 168 11

12 On June 15, 2021, Plaintiff Rick Keiner filed a motion for relief from a discovery order by 13 Magistrate Laurel Beeler concerning documents relating to reports of sexual assaults. See Dkt. 14 Nos. 168 (“Mot.”), 163 (“Order”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a district judge may 15 set aside a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order only if it is “clearly erroneous or 16 contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The magistrate’s 17 factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are 18 reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 19 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “The Court can overturn the “magistrate’s factual determinations only 20 if the court reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. 21 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “This standard is extremely deferential and the 22 [m]agistrate’s rulings should be considered the final decisions of the [d]istrict [c]ourt.” Otey v. 23 CrowdFlower, Inc., No. 12-cv-05524-JST, 2013 WL 3456942, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) 24 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in the original). 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Having reviewed Plaintiff's contentions and the relevant authority, the Court concludes 2 || that Plaintiff has not shown that the Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law and 3 accordingly DENIES the motion for relief. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: 9/1/2021

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

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