1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HIQ LABS, INC., Case No. 17-cv-03301-EMC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

9 v. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER

10 LINKEDIN CORPORATION, OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Defendant. Docket No. 262

12 13 14 Currently pending before the Court is hiQ’s motion for relief from Judge Kim’s order of 15 April 26, 2022. See Docket No. 256 (order). In that order, Judge Kim denied hiQ’s request that 16 LinkedIn be compelled to produce documents related to LinkedIn’s conduct toward other 17 competitive companies (such as monitoring or acquiring), including other data scrapers. Having 18 considered the parties’ briefs, Judge Kim’s order, and the evidence of record, the Court hereby 19 DENIES hiQ’s motion. 20 “Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows aggrieved parties to file timely 21 objections to rulings of a magistrate judge in nondispositive matters. Such objections are 22 sustained if the magistrate judge’s order is ‘found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” In 23 re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Secs. Litig., No. C-99-20743 RMW, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7098, at 24 *20-21 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2005). 25 hiQ argues first that Judge Kim made a legal error because she applied a heightened “direct 26 relevance” standard. hiQ is incorrect. Although Judge Kim did use the language “directly 27 relevant” in her order, it is clear that she was simply assessing how much probative value the 1 did Judge Kim clearly err in assessing the probative value of the information at issue. See Burdick 2 v. Comm’r Internal Rev. Serv., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that a magistrate 3 judge’s non-dispositive ruling is clearly erroneous only when the district judge is left with a 4 “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”). She did not err in finding the 5 evidence relative to other competitors tangential to LinkedIn’s intent vis-à-vis hiQ. 6 hiQ argues next that Judge Kim erred with respect to her understanding of its § 17200 7 claim (specifically, the unfair prong). According to hiQ, Judge Kim failed to take into account 8 that the § 17200 claim is not equivalent to the federal antitrust claims that this Court dismissed, 9 either as a legal matter or as a factual matter. Again, hiQ is not correct, ignoring the broader 10 context of Judge Kim’s order. 11 Finally, hiQ challenges Judge Kim’s ruling that, even if the information sought were 12 relevant, “the burden of production at this late stage of litigation far outweighs the needs of the 13 case.” Docket No. 256 (Order at 4). Based on the submitted record on the burden of the broad 14 discovery sought by hi-Q, Judge Kim did not clearly err in reaching this conclusion. 15 Accordingly, the Court DENIES hiQ’s motion for relief. 16 This order disposes of Docket No. 262. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: June 3, 2022 21 22 ______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27