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 LITIGATION Case No. 19-cv-02690-HSG 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE 9 PRETRIAL DISCOVERY ORDER 10 Re: Dkt. No. 365 11 2 5 13 In May 2023, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied state-plaintiff objectors’ request for S 14 || discovery. See Dkt. No. 362. State-plaintiff objectors then filed a motion for relief from Judge 3 15 || Beeler’s non-dispositive pretrial discovery order. See Dkt. No. 365. A pretrial order by a a 16 || magistrate judge will be reversed only if it “is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C.

= 17 || § 636(b)(1)(A). The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Beeler’s order, state-plaintiffs’ motion, 18 || lead Plaintiff's opposition, and the relevant legal authorities. Judge Beeler’s order is well- 19 || reasoned and thorough. The Court affirms the non-dispositive order because it is not “clearly 20 || erroneous or contrary to law.” See Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 21 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for relief from Judge Beeler’s non- 22 || dispositive pretrial discovery order. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: 5/31/2023 25 Aspe 3 bbl) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 26 United States District Judge 27 28