Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03400/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03400-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No.: 13-CV-03400-LHK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUZANNE GAYRARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:13-CV-03400-LHK 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 99

Defendants challenge Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s order requiring Defendants to produce 

certain applications to the CLS and SCILL programs, and the time within which Defendants must 

produce said documents. Having reviewed Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 93, the parties’ 

submissions before Judge Lloyd, and Judge Lloyd’s “Order re Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 

1,” ECF No. 98, the Court concludes that Judge Lloyd’s nondispositive pretrial order is neither 

“clearly erroneous” nor “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

First, Judge Lloyd’s decision that certain applications to the CLS and SCILL programs are

relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of age 

discrimination is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Lloyd limited the scope of 

Case 5:13-cv-03400-LHK Document 103 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 13-CV-03400-LHK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 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 California

Plaintiff’s proposed discovery and concluded that production of additional application documents 

from 2009-2013 is necessary “to make the over-40 group production meaningful.” ECF No. 98, at 

3. Defendants offer no persuasive reason why Judge Lloyd’s ruling is clearly erroneous. 

Second, Defendants have been fully aware that they would have to produce at least some 

volume of CLS and SCILL applications since November 19, 2014. See Discovery Letter Brief: 

Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1, ECF No. 70. Moreover, Judge Lloyd acknowledged 

Defendants’ concern regarding the time required to produce the ordered discovery and explicitly 

rejected Defendants’ request for 45 days. See ECF No. 98, at 4 (“The court will give CSU some 

extra time to complete its production---albeit, not the 45 days it asks for.”). This decision is not clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law. 

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03400-LHK Document 103 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 2