Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 839

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 707 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER DKT. NO. 665 . (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

LOOP AI LABS INC,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

v.
ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
ORDER DKT. NO. 665
Re: Dkt. No. 707

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Magistrate Ryu’s Order relating to a

12

dispute that arose during Defendant Anna Gatti’s deposition, Dkt. No. 665, the Court DENIES

13

Plaintiff’s motion. Gatti answered the question that was the subject of the parties’ request for

14

intervention, and any attempt by Plaintiff to compel the production of documents after the close of

15

fact discovery is inappropriate.

16

Accordingly, the Court finds that Magistrate Ryu’s order is not clearly erroneous or

17

contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial

18

matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is

19

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Civ. L.R. 72–2; United

20

States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that with respect to

21

discovery disputes and other nondispositive orders, a magistrate judge’s decision is “entitled to

22

great deference”); Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991)

23

(“The reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.”).

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/19/2016

26
27
28

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge