Stacey Champagne v. Trans Union, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 STACEY CHAMPAGNE, Case No. 24-cv-07848-NW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL DISCOVERY ORDER Re: ECF No. 56 Defendant. 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff Stacey Champagne sued her former employer Defendant TransUnion, LLC, 15 bringing claims for sex discrimination and harassment. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. The parties have 16 finished discovery: fact discovery closed on February 7, 2026, and expert discovery closed on 17 February 13, 2026. ECF Nos. 40, 43. 18 On February 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to complete discovery, 19 which Chief Magistrate Judge Cousins denied. ECF Nos. 51, 53. Judge Cousins found that 20 Plaintiff’s request lacked diligence and good cause. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff now moves for relief 21 from Judge Cousins’ nondispositive pretrial discovery order. ECF No. 56. 22 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons set forth in Judge Cousins’ Order. 23 ECF No. 53. The Court finds the Order to be proportional to the discovery needs of the case, and 24 not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (permitting 25 reconsideration only “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly 26 erroneous or contrary to law”); E.E.O.C. v. Peters’ Bakery, 301 F.R.D. 482, 484 (N.D. Cal. 2014) 27 (quoting Burdick v. C.I.R., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting a district court should only ] mistake has been committed.’”). 2 All deadlines and dates remain in effect. 4 || Dated: February 24, 2026

Noél Wise 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

15 16

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