Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc

Filing 290

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 279 Defendants' Motion for Relief from Magistrate Judge's Order of September 25, 2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

9

Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

No. C-11-5310 EMC

v.
ACRONIS, INC., et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER OF
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

Defendants.
(Docket No. 279)

13
___________________________________/
14
15

Acronis has moved for relief from Judge Corley’s order of September 25, 2013. 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.

20

The Court has reviewed both Judge Corley’s order as well as the parties’ briefs and

21

accompanying submissions. The Court finds Judge Corley’s order correct and well reasoned, and

22

accordingly concludes that Acronis has failed to show the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to

23

law.

24

To the extent Acronis contends that the single catalog feature was a fact not readily apparent

25

from an inspection of the source code, it never presented that argument to Judge Corley for

26

consideration. See, e.g., Estate of Gonzales v. Hickman, No. ED CV 05-660 MMM (RCx), 2007

27

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83702, at *19 n.15 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007) (stating that, “[i]n considering a

28

party’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 72(a), the court is limited to the factual record before

that, where a district court “reconsiders” a nondispositive ruling of a magistrate judge, “the district

3

court is not permitted to receive further evidence; it is bound by the clearly erroneous rule in

4

reviewing questions of fact”). Acronis protests that it cannot be faulted for not providing, e.g., the

5

Edge declaration to Judge Corley because, “prior to the hearing[,] Symantec did not argue that its

6

source code would have readily reviewed the use of the invention.” Reply at 3. Although Acronis

7

seems to be right that Symantec did not argue the source code point in its written opposition brief

8

filed with Judge Corley, the fact remains that Symantec did raise the issue at the hearing before her,

9

see Docket No. 270 (Tr. at 15), and Acronis did not at that time contest the assertion that the source

10

code would reveal the single catalog feature. Acronis did not even ask that Judge Corley defer the

11
For the Northern District of California

the magistrate judge”); see also Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992) (stating

2

United States District Court

1

issue so that it could look into the matter of whether the source code would reveal the single catalog

12

feature. Instead, Acronis simply argued, in effect, that it would have been too burdensome for it to

13

review all of the produced source code. See Docket No. 270 (Tr. at 16) (Acronis arguing “there

14

were dozens and dozens of products available for inspection, and each source code is thousands and

15

thousands of pages long”).

16

For the foregoing reasons, Acronis’s motion for relief is DENIED.

17

This order disposes of Docket No. 279.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: November 1, 2013

22
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2