Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01631/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01631-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID M. LUCAS and ERIC L.

SALERNO,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14-cv-1631-LAB (JLB)

ORDER DENYING JOS. A.

BANK'S MOTION FOR RELIEF

(DOCKET NO. 46) FROM

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE (DOCKET NO. 44) 

vs.

JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.,

Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt ordered Joseph A. Bank to produce (1) documents

relating to its costs and profit margins and (2) communications relating to its pricing strategy. 

(Docket no. 44.) Joseph A. Bank objects. (Docket no. 46.) It argues costs and profit

margins aren't relevant to restitution—Plaintiffs' only theory of monetary recovery—because

"restitution is calculated by comparing the amount paid with the value of what was received." 

(Id. at 2.) It also argues that its pricing strategy isn't relevant to the issue of class certification

and it shouldn't have to go through the burdensome process of producing pricing strategy

documents until the Court rules on class certification. (Id. at 4.)

A magistrate judge's non-dispositive pretrial order will be upheld unless it's "clearly

erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The "contrary

to law" standard permits independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate

- 1 -

Case 3:14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB Document 51 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 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

judge. See, e.g., Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir.1992). "Thus, the

district court must exercise its independent judgment with respect to a magistrate judge's

legal conclusions." Allen v. Similasan Corp., 2014 WL 2212120, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 27,

2014) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). "A decision is contrary to law if it fails

to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure." Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted).

Costs and Profit Margin Evidence

If Plaintiffs can show that Joseph A. Bank made its products with low-cost and

correspondingly low-quality inputs and, as a result, enjoyed uncommonly high profits, those

facts would be relevant to the availability of restitution. Thus, Joseph A. Bank's costs and

profit margins are relevant. 

Pricing Strategy Evidence

Pricing strategy is the focal point of this case, and discovery isn't bifurcated. Joseph

A. Bank hasn't established that it's unduly burdensome to produce its pricing strategy

evidence now, and the Court disagrees that the discovery period should be extended to

account for the possibility that its order on Plaintiffs' unfiled motion for class certification might

nullify the need for pricing strategy discovery.

Judge Burkhardt's order isn't clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Joseph A. Bank's

motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 8, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB Document 51 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2