Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-05623
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Chinitz v. Intero, Judge Freeman denied Intero’s request to overturn a magistrate judge’s discovery ruling barring subpoenas to Zillow.
Intero Real Estate Services, the plaintiffs, and non-party Zillow Group, Inc.; the ruling left in place the denial of Intero’s requested Zillow subpoenas.
What happened
In Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services, Intero asked the district court to overturn a magistrate judge’s decision denying its request to subpoena non-party Zillow Group, Inc. Intero said the subpoenas were needed to show that the plaintiffs took steps related to selling their homes.
The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s decision for clear factual error or an incorrect application of the law. It found neither. The court agreed that Intero had not shown the required good reason for the request and that the proposed discovery was an untimely fishing expedition rather than reasonably tailored to the case’s needs.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Intero’s motion for relief. The magistrate judge’s discovery ruling therefore remained in place.
The detailed version
- Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services · No. 5:18-cv-05623
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 8, 2021
Background
Intero Real Estate Services asked the district court for relief from a non-dispositive pretrial order issued by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. The challenged order denied Intero’s request to serve subpoenas on non-party Zillow Group, Inc. Intero argued that the subpoenas were necessary to show that the plaintiffs took steps connected with selling their homes and that the discovery request was proportional to the needs of the case.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law. The court also considered Rule 16’s requirements concerning good cause, proportionality, and the timeliness of discovery requests.
Court’s analysis
The court found no clear error in Judge Cousins’ order and no legal conclusion contrary to law. Judge Cousins had determined that Intero failed to demonstrate good cause for the subpoena request. He also found that the request was a fishing expedition rather than proportional to the needs of the case. The district court found no clear error in the consideration of proportionality or the request’s untimeliness under Rule 16.
Disposition
The court denied Intero’s motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order. The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.