Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Politico LLC’s motion to set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order denying a stay of discovery. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the court concluded that the magistrate judge’s ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate judge's denial of Politico's motion to stay discovery was clearly erroneous or contrary to law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
Holdings
- The magistrate judge's denial of Politico's motion to stay discovery was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, so the district court denied Politico's motion for relief.
Key quotations
“When reviewing a party’s objections to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order, the district judge must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”” (1)
“A district court should only overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling “if it is left with the ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”” (1)
Factual background
Politico LLC sought to stay discovery in the litigation. Magistrate Judge Cousins denied that request in a nondispositive pretrial order. Politico then sought district-court relief from that order, while the district court also took a preliminary peek at the merits of the pending motion to dismiss and believed that at least some claims would survive.
Procedural history
Judge Cousins denied Politico's motion to stay discovery. Politico objected and moved for relief in the district court. The district court reviewed the hearing transcript, concluded that the magistrate judge's ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and denied Politico's motion.