Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 1, 2021

In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:19-cv-02690
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation: Judge Gilliam denied Rick Keiner’s motion challenging a discovery order about sexual-assault reports.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Rick Keiner and the parties to the discovery dispute concerning documents related to reports of sexual assaults.

What happened

In In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation, Plaintiff Rick Keiner asked the district court to change a discovery order concerning documents related to reports of sexual assaults.

The court could change the magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order only if it was clearly mistaken or violated the law. After reviewing Keiner’s arguments and the relevant legal authorities, the court found that he had not met that standard.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion for relief. The opinion does not describe the underlying discovery order in further detail.

The detailed version

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

Case
In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 4:19-cv-02690
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Sept. 1, 2021

Background

On June 15, 2021, Plaintiff Rick Keiner moved for relief from a discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. The order concerned documents relating to reports of sexual assaults.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district judge may set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Clear-error review applies to factual findings, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law. The court described this as an extremely deferential standard.

Ruling

After reviewing Keiner’s arguments and the relevant authorities, the court concluded that he had not shown that Magistrate Judge Beeler’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court therefore denied the motion for relief.

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.