Alec Otto v. Nano f/k/a Raiblocks f/k/a Hieusys LLC

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES FABIAN, CASE NO. 4:19-cv-00054-YGR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF 9 vs. FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND 10 COLIN LEMAHIEU, ET. AL., (2) GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN- PART UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE 11 Defendants. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN OVERSIZED BRIEF Re: Dkt. Nos. 128, 139 15 Plaintiff James Fabian has filed: (1) a motion for relief from the non-dispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim regarding a discovery letter brief filed on May 14, 2020 (Dkt. No. 128; see also Dkt. Nos. 117 (joint discovery letter brief), 122 (Magistrate Judge Kim’s order denying letter brief)); and (2) an unopposed administrative motion for leave to file an oversized brief with respect to an upcoming motion to certify a class. (Dkt. No. 139.)

20 First, with respect to the motion for relief from Magistrate Judge Kim’s order and having review the record in this matter, Fabian does not persuade. Although Fabian avers that defendants have waived any and all objections due to their delay in responding to the propounded discovery, the record does not reflect that the delay was solely attributable to the defendants, especially where such a delay was agreed to by Fabian’s counsel. (See Dkt. No. 112-1 at 47-97.) Moreover, in totality of the circumstances as reflected in the record, the Court declines to use its discretion in finding that defendants have waived any and all objections. See Moore v. United States, No. 10- CV-2193, 2011 WL 3739518, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2011) (“District courts have wide (citing Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420, 1426 (9th Cir. 1985) (‘The district court has great latitude in imposing sanctions under [Rule 37]”); Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng’g & || Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir. 1992) (“This circuit has recognized as part of a district || court's inherent powers the broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial.”))). Accordingly, the motion for relief from Magistrate || Judge Kim’s non-dispositive pretrial order is DENIED.

7 Second, with respect to the administrative motion for leave to file an oversized brief, the || Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART this motion: the motion and the response brief shall || be limited to thirty-five (35) pages, and the reply brief shall be limited to twenty (20) pages.

10 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 128, and 139.

11 IT Is SO ORDERED.

12 |} Dated: August 3, 2020 Spent Haptic 3 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE © © & Z 18