Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.

Filing 237

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DECEMBER 20, 2013 DISCOVERY ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE SPERO. by Judge Richard Seeborg (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
INTERWOVEN, INC.,

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.,

No. C 10-04645 RS
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
DECEMBER 20, 2013 DISCOVERY
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SPERO

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pursuant to Local Rule 72-2, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A), Vertical moves for relief from Magistrate Judge Spero’s December 20, 2013
Discovery Order, in which he denied Defendant’s request to re-open discovery to take the
deposition of non-party Frank Livaudais.
In the parties’ Third Amended Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement, Vertical
requested to reopen discovery to take the deposition of non-party Frank Livaudais. (Dkt. 208.)
Interwoven opposed this request. During the Case Management Conference held on October 17,
2014, the court instructed the parties to work together to tie up any loose ends from fact discovery,
including the requested deposition, and the parties agreed to work together to do so. It appears those
efforts were unsuccessful. After receiving a joint letter from the parties regarding this issue and
holding a hearing thereon, Judge Spero denied Vertical’s request to depose Livaudais.
A district court may modify or set aside any non-dispositive ruling that is “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A district court
NO. C 10-04645 RS
ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

reviews a magistrate judge’s factual determinations “for clear error,” while the magistrate’s legal
conclusions are reviewed de novo to determine whether they are contrary to law. Guidiville
Rancheria of Cal. v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175365, at **4–5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13,
2013). Vertical has not shown that Judge Spero’s order, issued with additional briefing and oral
argument not presented to this court in the course of the case management conference, is either
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” The request for relief is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

Dated: January 3, 2014
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 10-03328 RS
ORDER

2