Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03328/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03328-10/pdf.json

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

---

NO. C -10-03328 RS (DMR)

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DETERMINATIONS

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 9/20/11* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C-10-03328 RS (DMR) 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

DETERMINATION 

 Defendants challenge a non-dispositive order of the assigned Magistrate Judge authorizing 

plaintiffs to undertake certain limited discovery to oppose defendants’ pending “anti-SLAPP” 

motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. In that challenged order, the 

Magistrate Judge sets forth a thorough analysis of applicable case authority in reaching the 

conclusion that in this particular action the section 425.16(g) discovery stay under state law conflicts 

with Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order then proceeds carefully to 

delineate certain relevant limited discovery propounded by plaintiffs to which defendants must 

respond. 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the determination of a Magistrate Judge on a nondispositive matter such as a request for discovery will be overturned only in the event that it is 

Case 3:10-cv-03328-RS Document 85 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 2
NO. C -10-03328 RS (DMR)

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DETERMINATIONS

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

For the Northern District of California 

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Here, defendants have made no such showing. Accordingly, 

the defendants’ objections to that ruling are overruled and they will be required to provide responses 

to the discovery identified by the Magistrate Judge within 20 days of the date of this order. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 9/20/11 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:10-cv-03328-RS Document 85 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 2