In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-02690
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation: Judge Gilliam denied state-plaintiff objectors’ motion for relief from a discovery order.
The state-plaintiff objectors, whose request for discovery and motion for relief from the discovery order were denied.
What happened
In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation concerns state-plaintiff objectors who sought discovery in the case.
In May 2023, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied the objectors’ request for discovery. The objectors then asked the district court for relief from her pretrial discovery order.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. affirmed Judge Beeler’s order, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and denied the motion for relief.
The detailed version
- In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 4:19-cv-02690
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 31, 2023
Background
In May 2023, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied state-plaintiff objectors’ request for discovery. The objectors then filed a motion asking the district court to provide relief from Judge Beeler’s non-dispositive pretrial discovery order. A non-dispositive order is a pretrial ruling that does not end the case.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district court may reverse a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Ruling
The court reviewed Judge Beeler’s order, the objectors’ motion, the lead plaintiff’s opposition, and the relevant legal authorities. It found that Judge Beeler’s order was well reasoned and thorough and was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court therefore affirmed the order and DENIED the motion for relief from the non-dispositive pretrial discovery order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.