Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc

Filing 207

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 173 Defendants' Motion for Relief from Magistrate Judge's Order of December 28, 2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SYMANTEC CORPORATION, 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 No. C-11-5310 EMC Plaintiff, v. ACRONIS, INC., et al., ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER OF DECEMBER 28, 2012 Defendants. (Docket No. 173) 13 ___________________________________/ 14 15 Acronis has moved for relief from Judge Corley’s order of December 28, 2012. Under 16 federal law, “[a] non-dispositve order entered by a magistrate [judge] must be deferred to unless it is 17 ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 18 241 (9th Cir. 1991). When a district court reviews a magistrate judge’s order, it “may not simply 19 substitute its judgment for that of the [magistrate judge].” Id. Because Acronis has failed to show 20 that Judge Corley’s order was clearly erroneous or that it was contrary to law, its motion for relief is 21 hereby DENIED. 22 This order disposes of Docket No. 173. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: March 4, 2013 26 27 28 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?