Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
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
On September 5, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied Plaintiff’s request to
strike portions of a declaration by Defendant’s expert, Dr. Michael J. Freedman, and granted
Defendant’s request to strike the declaration of Christopher Alpaugh, Plaintiff’s expert. Dkt. No.
141. On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from Judge Westmore’s order.
Dkt. No. 142. On September 29, 2017, Defendant filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 146. The Court
has carefully reviewed Judge Westmore’s order, Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant’s opposition, and
the relevant legal authorities. Judge Westmore’s order is well-reasoned and thorough. The Court
affirms the non-dispositive order because it is not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See
Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Judge Westmore’s non-dispositive pretrial order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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?