Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Airline Crash

---

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

NAIM I. AYAT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SOCIETE AIR FRANCE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-01574 JSW

ORDER (1) DENYING

OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY

ORDER AND (2) STRIKING

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Now before the Court are the objections filed by plaintiff Naim I. Ayat (“Plaintiff”) to

Magistrate Judge James Larson’s Discovery Order dated January 8, 2008 and amended on

January 9, 2008 (the “Discovery Order”). Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the

Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s objections and AFFIRMS the Discovery Order.

The District Court may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate’s ruling on nondispositive pre-trial motions found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a); see also, e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir.

1991). A ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after considering the evidence, is

left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.

U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). 

After a careful review of the Discovery Order, this Court finds that the Judge Larson’s

ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 135 Filed 02/05/08 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

Objections and AFFIRMS the Discovery Order dated January 8, 2008 and amended on January

9, 2008.

In violation of this Court’s Standing Order, Plaintiff filed an “Emergency Motion for

Protective Order” on January 31, 2008, and noticed it to be heard on March 14, 2008. Plaintiff

filed this motion in violation of this Court’s Standing Order regarding discovery disputes, which

requires that all requests for discovery relief must be summarized jointly by the parties in a

letter brief in no longer than four pages. (Standing Order ¶ 7.) The joint letter brief must attest

that prior to filing the request for relief counsel met and conferred in person, and must concisely

summarize those remaining issues that counsel were unable to resolve. (Id.) Accordingly, the

Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. The Court therefore DENIES as

MOOT defendant Goodrich Corporation’s administrative motion to shorten time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 135 Filed 02/05/08 Page 2 of 2