Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05221/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05221-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

CHARLES RIDGWAY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED 

MARCH 11, 2016

Re: Dkt. No. 267

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has filed a motion for relief from a nondispositive 

pretrial order of a magistrate judge. Docket No. 267. Defendant seeks disclosure of unredacted 

copies (i.e. with names and addresses) of all survey responses from a 2014 survey that plaintiffs’ 

counsel conducted among class members. On March 11, 2016, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. 

Spero issued an order following a hearing on the discovery dispute. Docket No. 263. Defendant 

then moved for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), 

and Civil Local Rule 72-2. Docket No. 276 at 1-2. 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers, the transcript from the March 11, 2016 

hearing, and Judge Spero’s order. The Court finds nothing in the hearing transcript or in Judge 

Spero’s order that is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

Moreover, the Court agrees that Judge Spero’s order strikes the appropriate balance between the 

competing interests at stake. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05221-SI Document 284 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 1