Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC., Case No. 16-cv-06711-JSW
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
9 v. RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE
ORDER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
10 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 88 11 Defendants. 12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion for relief from Magistrate Judge 14 Kim’s Order regarding the designation of Harold Pestana and production of documents from 15 Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s core gas supply (“CGS”) department, filed by Plaintiff Tiger 16 Natural Gas, Inc. (“Tiger”). The Court has considered the parties’ briefs, relevant legal authority, 17 the record in this case, and it has had the benefit of oral argument. 18 BACKGROUND 19 On July 31, 2018, following a discovery dispute, Magistrate Judge Kim issued an Order in 20 which she denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to produce documents relating to the 21 CGS department. (See Order on Discovery Dispute…