Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80062/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80062-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYERS

RETIREMENT FUND, ET AL.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant. /

Case Nos. 16-mc-80062-JSC (WHA)

16-mc-80076-JSC (WHA)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

RELIEF FROM ORDERS OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The present discovery dispute arises out of a putative securities class action pending in

the United States District Court for Minnesota. Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit following the

publication of a negative report about defendant Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. by Gotham City

Research, LLC, an investor who shorted Tile Shop stock. Plaintiffs and defendants served

third-party subpoenas on Gotham seeking documents and depositions. Gotham failed to comply

with the subpoenas, and the parties filed separate actions to compel Gotham’s compliance. See

Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No. 16-80062

(Plaintiffs’ action); Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No.

16-80076 (Defendants’ action). Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted plaintiffs’

motion to compel production of Gotham’s sources of information and denied defendants’

motion to compel the subpoenas seeking documents and a deposition. Gotham subsequently

filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Corley denied. Now, Gotham and defendants

seek relief from Judge Corley’s orders.

Case 3:16-mc-80062-JSC Document 28 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the 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

2

The Court has reviewed the orders of Judge Corley and completely agrees with them. 

To the extent this motion is an “appeal,” the orders by Judge Corley are affirmed for the reasons

stated by her. To the extent this motion is one for de novo review, this order adopts her findings

and conclusions as its own. This will eliminate any issue with respect to the parties’ ability to

pursue an appeal with our court of appeals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-mc-80062-JSC Document 28 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 2