Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00735/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00735-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1 

Case No.14-cv-00735-LHK 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SANDRA LEE JACOBSON,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PERSOLVE, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-00735-LHK 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Re: Dkt. No. 97 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 97, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd’s 

April 1, 2015 order, ECF No. 94, and the parties’ submissions with respect to Judge Lloyd’s order, 

ECF No. 85, the Court concludes that Judge Lloyd’s decision granting in part and denying 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel was neither “clearly erroneous” nor “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(a). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial 

Order of Magistrate Judge under Rule 72(a). 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal, 

ECF No. 98. Plaintiff has failed to show “good cause” to seal the information contained in Exhibit 

D. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that 

Case 5:14-cv-00735-LHK Document 103 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Cas

OR

MA

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 

“go

cau

the

121

alle

suf

IT 

Da

se No.14-cv-00

RDER DENYIN

AGISTRATE J

ood cause” s

use” standard

e information

10–11 (9th C

egations of h

ffice. Beckm

Plaintif

IS SO ORD

ated: April 23

0735-LHK 

NG PLAINTIF

UDGE 

standard app

d requires a 

n is disclosed

Cir. 2002) (in

harm, unsubs

an Indus., In

ff shall file an

DERED. 

3, 2015 

FF’S MOTION

lies to sealin

“particulariz

d. Phillips ex

nternal quota

stantiated by

nc. v. Int’l In

ny renewed 

2

N FOR RELIEF

ng requests a

zed showing

x rel. Estates

ation marks 

y specific ex

ns. Co., 966 F

motion to se

___

LU

Un

F FROM NON

attached to n

g” that “spec

s of Byrd v. 

omitted); se

xamples of ar

F.2d 470, 47

eal within 7 

__________

UCY H. KOH

nited States D

DISPOSITIVE

nondispositiv

cific prejudic

Gen. Motors

ee Fed. R. Ci

rticulated re

76 (9th Cir. 

days of this 

___________

H

District Judg

E PRETRIAL O

ve motions).

ce or harm w

s Corp., 307

iv. P. 26(c). 

asoning” wi

1992). 

order. 

__________

ge 

ORDER OF 

 The “good 

will result” if

7 F.3d 1206, 

“Broad 

ll not 

________ 

f

Case 5:14-cv-00735-LHK Document 103 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 2