IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 26, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-02155
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11

12 Case No. 20-CV-02155-LHK IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ COMMUNICATIONS INC. PRIVACY MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON- 14 DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF LITIGATION MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Re: Dkt. No. 142 16

17 18 On December 7, 2020, the parties briefed United States Magistrate Judge Susan van 19 Keulen on whether the protective order in this litigation should include a certain provision from 20 this district’s Model Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive 21 Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets (“Model Order”). ECF No. 135. Specifically, 22 Plaintiffs opposed including the Model Order’s provision on disclosing “Highly Confidential – 23 Attorneys’ Eyes Only” documents to experts. See id. at 1–2 (challenging Model Order § 7.4). On 24 December 16, 2020, Judge van Keulen issued an Order Regarding Protective Order and FRE 502 25 Discovery Disputes, which adopted the parties’ proposed protective order with some modifications 26 not relevant here. ECF No. 138 (“Judge van Keulen’s Order”). On December 30, 2020, Plaintiffs 27 1 1 filed the instant motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate judge. ECF No. 2 142. 3 Judge van Keulen’s Order resolves a nondispositive pretrial matter. See Maisonville v. F2 4 || Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[A]ny motion not listed [under 28 U.S.C. 5 § 636(b)(1)(A)], nor analogous to a motion listed in this category, falls within the non-dispositive 6 || group of matters which a magistrate may determine.”). “A non-dispositive order entered by a 7 magistrate must be deferred to unless it is ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” Grimes v. San 8 || Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a))). Thus, the Court will 9 || modify or set aside Judge van Keulen’s Order only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 10 || 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); accord Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 11 (9th Cir. 2002) (reviewing magistrate judge’s protective order under same standard). 12 In reviewing for clear error, the district judge may not simply substitute his or her 13 || judgment for that of the magistrate judge. “Clear error is found when a reviewing court has ‘a S 14 definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Lewis v. Ayers, 681 F.3d 992, 3 15 || 998 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001)). Under this standard, A 16 || if the magistrate judge’s findings “are plausible in light of the entire record, [the Court] may not

17 || reverse, even if [the Court] would have weighed the evidence differently.” Jd. Z, 18 Having reviewed Judge van Keulen’s Order, the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and 19 || the record in this case, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial 20 || order of magistrate judge. The Court concludes that Judge van Keulen’s Order was neither “clearly 21 erroneous” nor “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 22 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: January 26, 2021 25 facy i ' ef \ LUCY @ KOH 26 United States District Judge 27 28 Case No. 20-CV-02155-LHK ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF