In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE LYFT INC. SECURITIES Case No. 19-cv-02690-HSG

LITIGATION

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 168

On June 15, 2021, Plaintiff Rick Keiner filed a motion for relief from a discovery order by Magistrate Laurel Beeler concerning documents relating to reports of sexual assaults. See Dkt.

Nos. 168 (“Mot.”), 163 (“Order”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a district judge may set aside a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The 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. 19 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “The Court can overturn the “magistrate’s factual determinations only if the court reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. 21 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “This standard is extremely deferential and the [m]agistrate’s rulings should be considered the final decisions of the [d]istrict [c]ourt.” Otey v. CrowdFlower, Inc., No. 12-cv-05524-JST, 2013 WL 3456942, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in the original).

// // //

1 Having reviewed Plaintiff's contentions and the relevant authority, the Court concludes || that Plaintiff has not shown that the Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law and accordingly DENIES the motion for relief.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 || Dated: 9/1/2021

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge

= 17

Z 18