Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01508/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01508-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ISAAC RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01508-BLF 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER OF A 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[Re: ECF 40]

On April 29, 2015, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd issued an Order on the parties’

Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1, in which Judge Lloyd granted Plaintiff’s request to compel 

Defendant to produce the names, last known addresses, and telephone numbers of putative class 

members. See ECF 37 at 2, 6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Civil Local 

Rule 72-2, Defendant moves for relief from this Order. Plaintiff opposes. 

Under Rule 72(a), a party may seek relief from the non-dispositive order of a Magistrate 

Judge when that Order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”; see also Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 

2008 WL 3287035, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2008). Defendant has not met its burden to show that 

Judge Lloyd’s Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Rather, Judge Lloyd’s well-reasoned 

Order is consistent with many other decisions made in this district granting classwide discovery 

regarding putative class member contact information, pursuant to an opt-out procedure. See, e.g., 

Bell v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2014 WL 985829, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2014); see also Willner v. 

Manpower, Inc., 2013 WL 1729771, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013) (finding an order granting the 

disclosure of putative class member contact information, subject to an opt-out, was “amply 

supported by Ninth Circuit authority”). 

The Court finds that Defendant Nike has failed to show that Judge Lloyd’s Order was 

Case 5:14-cv-01508-BLF Document 43 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As such, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for relief 

from Judge Lloyd’s Order on Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-01508-BLF Document 43 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 2