Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05493/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05493-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

MAJEED SEIFI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05493-TEH 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL 

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiffs seek relief from the Magistrate Judge’s order denying their motion to 

compel production of documents in the possession of Daimler AG, the parent company of 

Defendant Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC (“MBUSA”). See Mot. (Docket No. 131); Order 

(Docket No. 122). Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth below. 

Plaintiffs mistakenly assert that the Magistrate Judge’s order is subject to de novo 

review. Mot. at 1. However, the Magistrate Judge’s order regarded a nondispositive 

pretrial matter, as Plaintiffs’ own motion recognizes. Such orders are reviewed under the 

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard, not de novo review. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Civil L.R. 72-3 Commentary. 

The order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge 

applied binding Ninth Circuit precedent to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ motion. See In re Citric 

Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999). The Magistrate Judge rejected Plaintiffs’

argument that certain NHTSA regulations create a legal right for MBUSA to control the 

documents at issue, in part because the regulations only apply to information that is 

required to be reported in the context of an NHTSA investigation, and no such 

investigation is underway here. Order at 5. This was a reasonable application of the law, 

and the Court finds no error in the order. 

//

//

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 136 Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the Magistrate Judge’s 

nondispositive pretrial order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/07/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 136 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 2