Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 19, 2025

Pattison v. HP Inc.

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:24-cv-02752
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Pattison v. HP Inc., Judge Chesney denied HP Inc.’s motion challenging a magistrate judge’s discovery order.

Who this affects

HP Inc. must comply with the December 2, 2025, discovery order requiring responses to Interrogatories Nos. 5–6 and Request for Production No. 36; Mary Pattison opposed HP Inc.’s motion.

What happened

In Mary Pattison v. HP Inc., HP Inc. asked the court to overturn part of a magistrate judge’s discovery order. That order required HP Inc. to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 5–6 and Request for Production No. 36.

The court reviewed the parties’ filings, the record before the magistrate judge, and the cited authorities. It found that the December 2 order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied HP Inc.’s motion for relief. The December 2 discovery order therefore remains in place.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pattison v. HP Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-02752
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
Dec. 19, 2025

Background

HP Inc. sought relief from Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore’s December 2, 2025, order regarding discovery letters. The challenged order required HP Inc. to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 5–6 and Request for Production No. 36. Mary Pattison opposed HP Inc.’s motion.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may grant relief from a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Ruling

After considering the motion, the opposition, the record before the magistrate judge, and the cited authorities, the court found that the December 2 order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court therefore denied HP Inc.’s Motion for Relief. The opinion also states that a more detailed showing was not presented to the magistrate judge and was consequently not properly before the district court for consideration.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.