Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc

Filing 157

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 142 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. DROPBOX INC., et al., Case No. 16-cv-00119-HSG ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 142 Defendants. 12 13 On September 5, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied Plaintiff’s request to 14 strike portions of a declaration by Defendant’s expert, Dr. Michael J. Freedman, and granted 15 Defendant’s request to strike the declaration of Christopher Alpaugh, Plaintiff’s expert. Dkt. No. 16 141. On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from Judge Westmore’s order. 17 Dkt. No. 142. On September 29, 2017, Defendant filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 146. The Court 18 has carefully reviewed Judge Westmore’s order, Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant’s opposition, and 19 the relevant legal authorities. Judge Westmore’s order is well-reasoned and thorough. The Court 20 affirms the non-dispositive order because it is not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See 21 Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the 22 Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Judge Westmore’s non-dispositive pretrial order. 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10/24/2017 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 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?