IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION

Background

The parties asked Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen to decide whether their protective order should include a provision from the district’s model protective order. The disputed provision concerned disclosure of documents labeled “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to experts. The plaintiffs opposed including that provision.

On December 16, 2020, Judge van Keulen issued an order addressing the protective order and certain discovery disputes. She adopted the parties’ proposed protective order with modifications that the opinion says were not relevant to this motion. On December 30, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking relief from that nondispositive pretrial order.

Standard of review

The district court treated Judge van Keulen’s ruling as a nondispositive order, meaning an order resolving a pretrial matter that does not finally decide the claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district court could modify or set aside the order only if it was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” The court explained that clear error requires a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made; it could not simply substitute its own judgment if the magistrate judge’s findings were plausible based on the record.

Ruling

Judge Koh denied the plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order. The court concluded that Judge van Keulen’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Disposition

The plaintiffs’ motion was denied.