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)

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