Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JERI CONNOR, Case No. 18-cv-07597-BLF

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE

QUORA, INC., JUDGE

Defendant. [Re: ECF 209]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Jeri Connor’s motion for relief from a non-dispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72-2. See Mot., ECF 209. Ms. Connor challenges Judge Cousins’s denial of her motion to compel further document production on the basis that he failed to apply the three-part test for implied waiver as set forth in Home Indemnity Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller, 43 F.3d 1322, 1326 (9th Cir. 1995). Mot. 1. After the Court ordered Quora to respond to Ms. Connor’s motion, Quora filed an opposition brief arguing that Judge Cousins correctly decided that Quora did not impliedly waive its work product privilege. See Opp’n, ECF 189.

A magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order may be modified or set aside if it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “[T]he magistrate’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. 25 Cal. 2010). Having reviewed the briefing and underlying order, the Court finds no clear error and that Judge Cousins’s legal conclusion was not contrary to law. Judge Cousins found that Quora did not waive the privilege by filing the selective testimony of Zhe Fu, Paula Griffin, and Jesse not reference or rely upon the documents in question in their declarations. Jd. And finally, he || found that Ms. Connor should be able to understand and rebut the testimony without piercing privileged information. /d. These findings satisfy the three-part test as articulated in Home || Indemnity Co. 43 F.3d at 1326. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Connor’s motion for relief. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 || Dated: January 12, 2021 kom Lh ham thn

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

9 United States District Judge

©

= 17

Z 18