In re ALPHABET, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Background

The plaintiff sought relief from Magistrate Judge Ryu’s June 22, 2023 discovery order. The challenged order concerned discovery in the securities litigation, and the district court also referred to the existing protective order.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive pretrial motion only if the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A ruling is clearly erroneous when review of the evidence leaves the court with a firm conviction that a mistake was made. A ruling is contrary to law when it applies the wrong legal standard or fails to consider an element of the applicable standard.

The court cited decisions addressing depositions of high-ranking executives. Those decisions consider whether the executive has unique, firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge and whether the party seeking the deposition has used or exhausted less intrusive discovery methods. Courts may also consider the executive’s position, the importance of the executive’s knowledge, and the availability of less burdensome discovery methods.

Ruling

The court held that the Discovery Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It found that the magistrate judge’s discretionary ruling and the current protective order complied with precedent. Judge Jeffrey S. White therefore denied the plaintiff’s motion for relief from the Discovery Order.