1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 In re ALPHABET, INC. SECURITIES Case No. 18-cv-06245-JSW

LITIGATION

13 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 14 RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE

15 JUDGE Re: Dkt. No. 185 16

17 18 The Court has received Plaintiff’s motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of 19 a magistrate judge. Plaintiff seeks relief from Magistrate Judge Ryu’s discovery order dated June 20 22, 2023 (“Discovery Order”). (Dkt. No. 175.) 21 The District Court may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate’s ruling on non- 22 dispositive pre-trial motions found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 72(a); see also, e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 24 1991). A ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after considering the evidence, is left 25 with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. 26 Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). “A decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect 27 legal standard or fails to consider an element of the applicable standard.” Na Pali Haweo 1 Having reviewed the record, the Court does not find the Discovery Order to be clearly 2 || erroneous or contrary to law. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s discretionary ruling and 3 current protective order complies with precedent. See, e.g., First United Methodist Church of San 4 || Jose v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., No 95-cv-02243-DLJ, 1995 WL 5660626, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 5 1995) (holding that court may grant the deposition of a high-ranking executive when he or she 6 || possesses first-hand knowledge of “important, relevant, and material facts”); Affinity Labs of 7 Texas v. Apple, Inc., No. 09-cv-04436-CW (JL), 2011 WL 1753982, at *15 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 8 2011) (holding that when a party seeks the deposition of a high-level executive, the court may 9 exercise its discretion to limit the discovery and can consider “(1) whether the deponent has 10 || unique first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and (2) whether the 11 party seeking the deposition has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods.”); In re 12 Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litig., No. 07-cv-05634-CRB (DMR), 2014 5 13. || WL 939287, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014) (holding that courts consider whether the party 14 seeking the apex deposition has obtained the information sought through other discovery or less 3 15 intrusive means); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 282 F.R.D. 259, 263-34 (2012) 16 (holding that courts looks at the relative position of the deponent within the company, the 3 17 materiality and knowledge of the witness, and the availability or exhaustion of other less 18 || burdensome discovery methods). 19 Accordingly, Plaintiff? motion for relief from the Discovery Order is DENIED. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. fo) / 4, | 22 || Dated: July 20, 2023 \ fe Hfauy 23 fy / JEEFUEY S. WATE | “United States District Judge 25 26 27 28