1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JERI CONNOR, Case No. 18-cv-07597-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 10 QUORA, INC., JUDGE 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF 237]

12

13 Before the Court is Defendant Quora, Inc.’s motion for relief from a non-dispositive 14 pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72-2. See 15 Mot., ECF 237. Quora challenges Judge Cousins’s denial of its motion to compel a forensic 16 examination of Plaintiff Jeri Connor’s electronic devices she used to access Quora on the bases that the decision was clearly erroneous and contrary to law. Id. 2. Quora argues that it addressed 17 all the details Judge Cousins found lacking in its proposal and that his alleged lack of reasoning 18 for the decision makes it contrary to law. Id. 3-4. 19 A magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order may be modified or set aside if it is 20 “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “[T]he magistrate’s factual 21 determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to 22 determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger,

(N.D.

). Having reviewed the briefing and underlying order, the Court finds no clear error and 24 that Judge Cousins’s legal conclusion was not contrary to law. Judge Cousins did not find Quora’s 25 showing adequate enough to grant the motion, and he applied the correct legal standard. Quora 26 cannot come to this court for a do-over on the factual determination. 27 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 || Dated: May 19, 2021 kom Lh ham th) 4 □□ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

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