1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MARY PATTISON, Case No. 24-cv-02752-MMC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 8 v. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 9 HP INC., OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 Defendant.

11 12 Before the Court is defendant HP Inc.'s "Motion for Relief from Nondispositive 13 Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge," filed December 19, 2025, whereby defendant seeks 14 relief from Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore's "Order Regarding 9/30/25 Discovery 15 Letters" (see Doc. No. 89), filed December 2, 2025 ("December 2 Order"), specifically, 16 the ruling therein that requires defendant to respond to "Interrogatories Nos. 5-6 and 17 Request for Production No. 36." (See Def.'s Mot. at 5:24-25.) Plaintiff Mary Pattison has 18 filed opposition thereto. 19 Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the 20 Motion for Relief, the record before the Magistrate Judge, and the cases cited by the 21 parties and the Magistrate Judge, as well as other authorities cited in those cases and 22 decided under circumstances similar to those presented here, see, e.g., Gamino v. KPC 23 Healthcare Holdings, Inc.,

(C.D. Cal. June 2, 2021) (finding magistrate 24 judge did not err in requiring defendant to produce list of putative class members pre- 25 certification), the Court finds the December 2 Order is not "clearly erroneous or contrary 26 to law," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).1 27 1 Accordingly, the Motion for Relief is hereby DENIED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 || Dated: December 19, 2025 INE M. CHESNEY 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

14 O

16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 notes that such detailed showing was not presented to the Magistrate Judge and, 28 consequently, is not properly before this Court for consideration.