Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

Background

Nicky Laatz moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and the Northern District of California’s local rules for relief from Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi’s October 4, 2024 order. That earlier order denied Laatz’s request to compel Zazzle, Inc. to produce a designated corporate witness for additional preparation on Topic 10(a) of Laatz’s deposition notice.

Topic 10(a) concerned testimony about designs using the Blooming Elegant Trio fonts. Zazzle designated Jason Li to testify on that topic. Laatz argued that Li could not provide competent testimony about the number of people who prepared “pending designs” using the fonts. Zazzle responded that “pending designs” had not been identified as part of the deposition topic and that the parties had not discussed whether “created” included pending designs.

Judge DeMarchi concluded that Topic 10(a) was not clearly broad enough to include draft, auto-saved, or pending designs. Because Laatz had not described the requested testimony with the reasonable particularity required for a deposition notice directed to an organization, Judge DeMarchi found that no further deposition on that issue was warranted.

Motion and arguments

Laatz asked Judge Freeman to modify or set aside Judge DeMarchi’s order. Laatz argued that two factual determinations were clearly mistaken: that Topic 10(a) lacked sufficient specificity to include all people who created designs using the fonts, including people involved with draft, auto-saved, or pending designs; and that draft or pending designs were outside the meaning of “created.” Laatz also argued that testimony about pending designs was relevant to her damages theory.

Zazzle and Mohamed Alkhatib opposed the motion. They argued that Laatz’s deposition notice did not clearly require the designated witness to testify about designs Laatz called “pending,” and that Laatz had nevertheless obtained testimony on pending designs. They also disputed the relevance of that discovery to Laatz’s damages theory.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s non-final pretrial order only if it is clearly mistaken or contrary to law. The review is highly deferential; the district judge may not simply replace the magistrate judge’s judgment with the district judge’s own judgment. Factual findings are reviewed for clear error, meaning the court must have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.

Analysis

Judge Freeman held that the relevance of the desired testimony was not the question presented by the motion. The question was whether Judge DeMarchi clearly erred in finding that the deposition notice did not specifically cover pending designs.

The notice did not define “create” or “created,” and it did not mention pending designs. Those omissions supported Judge DeMarchi’s conclusion that the notice lacked reasonable particularity as to testimony about pending designs. Judge Freeman also rejected Laatz’s effort to give “created” a broader meaning after the deposition, including finalized, published, pending, and draft designs. The court concluded that it was not clear error for Judge DeMarchi to reject that broad and vague interpretation.

Disposition

Judge Beth Freeman denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.