Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04692/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04692-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GORDON ERSPAMER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LONG

TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendant

 /

No. C-08-4692 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER

Before the Court is defendant Morrison & Foerster LLP Long Term Disability Plan’s

“Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge,” filed May 28,

2010, by which defendant objects to certain statements in Magistrate James Larson’s

Order of May 18, 2010 (“Order”)

In said Order, Magistrate Judge Larson set a briefing schedule and hearing date for

plaintiff Gordon Erspamer’s Motion to Quash or for a Protective Order, filed May 15, 2010. 

In so doing, Magistrate Judge Larson noted that defendant had propounded “numerous

document requests and noticed multiple depositions,” which Magistrate Judge Larson

described as “clearly excessive” and “unenforceable” in light of his interpretation of this

Court’s Order of April 20, 2010. Defendant objects to the above-referenced commentary,

on the ground such remarks constitute a premature determination of plaintiff’s motion prior

Case 3:08-cv-04692-MMC Document 95 Filed 06/08/10 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

2

to affording defendant an opportunity to file its response thereto. The Court disagrees.

Read in context, the challenged statements in Magistrate Judge Larson’s Order are

preliminary in nature, as plaintiff’s motion has not been granted, either in whole or in part. 

Indeed, there would have been no need to set a briefing schedule had Magistrate Judge

Larson intended by his inclusion of such comments to resolve plaintiff’s motion. Further,

the inclusion thereof may assist the parties in resolving or limiting the instant discovery

disputes, whether through the meet and confer process or otherwise, and/or provide

guidance to defendant with respect to the showing it might wish to make in its opposition. 

In sum, the Court finds the inclusion of the challenged content was neither clearly

erroneous nor contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Accordingly, defendant’s Motion for Relief is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04692-MMC Document 95 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 2