Ojmar US, LLC v. Security People, Inc. et al
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFF OJMAR U.S., LLCS 88 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OJMAR US, LLC,
SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-04948-HSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF OJMAR
U.S., LLC’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
Re: Dkt. No. 88
On June 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Maria Elena-James issued a discovery order, Dkt. No.
83, resolving the parties’ joint letter brief, Dkt. No. 75-4. On June 15, 2017, Plaintiff Ojmar U.S.,
LLC (“Ojmar”) filed a motion for relief from one aspect of Judge James’ order. See Dkt. No. 88
at 3–5 (objecting to the order insofar as it limited discovery from attorney Frear Stephen Schmid
to the time period prior to service of the complaint in the ’180 patent case). Plaintiff’s motion is
unopposed and pending before the Court. Having carefully reviewed the relevant papers and legal
authorities, the Court finds Judge James’ order to be 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 & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Ojmar’s motion for relief from Judge James’ non-dispositive pretrial order.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. See Civil L.R. 72-2
(“Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned District Judge, . . . no hearing will be held concerning
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?