Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01129/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01129-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:53(b) - Prelim &amp; Perm Inj Relief &amp; other Equitable Relief

---

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTV, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 126

On March 30, 2016, non-party Paula Selis filed a motion for nondispositive relief from the 

Magistrate Judge’s order directing Ms. Selis to sit for a three-hour oral deposition. See Dkt. No. 

122. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a district judge may set aside a magistrate 

judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The magistrate’s factual determinations are 

reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether 

they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 

“When the court reviews the magistrate’s determination of relevance in a discovery order, the 

Court must review the magistrate’s order with an eye toward the broad standard of relevance in the 

discovery context. Thus, the standard of review in most instances is not the explicit statutory 

language, but the clearly implicit standard of abuse of discretion.” Id. at 348 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). The Court can overturn the “magistrate’s factual determinations only if the court 

reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). “This standard is extremely deferential and the [m]agistrate’s 

rulings should be considered the final decisions of the [d]istrict [c]ourt.” Otey v. CrowdFlower, 

Inc., No. 12-CV-05524-JST, 2013 WL 3456942, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) (internal quotation 

Case 4:15-cv-01129-HSG Document 139 Filed 04/22/16 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

marks omitted). 

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s order and finds no clear error of fact or 

legal conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the motion to set aside the Magistrate Judge’s 

order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/22/2016

Case 4:15-cv-01129-HSG Document 139 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 2