Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02274/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02274-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONITA SHARMA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02274-MMC 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 143

Before the Court is plaintiffs' "Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order 

of Magistrate Judge" ("Objections"), filed March 29, 2016, by which plaintiffs object to 

Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore's order of March 15, 2016, to the extent such 

order denies in part plaintiffs' request for discovery regarding electronic components 

other than the three components identified by name in the operative complaint. Having 

read and considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.

Plaintiffs argue that certain findings set forth in the challenged order are based on 

"inaccurate information and misrepresentations" made by defendant (see Pls.' Objections 

at 1:6-15), and, consequently, are clearly erroneous. Plaintiffs do not contend, however,

that the challenged findings are erroneous based on the record as presented to 

Magistrate Judge Westmore, but, rather, that said findings should be found erroneous 

based on evidence submitted for the first time in support of the instant Objections. (See

Pls' Objections at 1:11-15; 3:3 - 4:6; 5:4-15.) Under such circumstances, plaintiffs' 

Objections are, in essence, a motion for reconsideration based on newly-offered 

evidence.

//

Case 3:13-cv-02274-MMC Document 144 Filed 04/01/16 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

Accordingly, plaintiffs' Objections are hereby DENIED, without prejudice to 

plaintiffs' filing, before Magistrate Judge Westmore and no later than April 15, 2016, a 

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02274-MMC Document 144 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 2