Ojmar US, LLC v. Security People, Inc. et al

Filing 100

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OJMAR US, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-04948-HSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF OJMAR
U.S., LLC’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 88

12

On June 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Maria Elena-James issued a discovery order, Dkt. No.

13

83, resolving the parties’ joint letter brief, Dkt. No. 75-4. On June 15, 2017, Plaintiff Ojmar U.S.,

14

LLC (“Ojmar”) filed a motion for relief from one aspect of Judge James’ order. See Dkt. No. 88

15

at 3–5 (objecting to the order insofar as it limited discovery from attorney Frear Stephen Schmid

16

to the time period prior to service of the complaint in the ’180 patent case). Plaintiff’s motion is

17

unopposed and pending before the Court. Having carefully reviewed the relevant papers and legal

18

authorities, the Court finds Judge James’ order to be well-reasoned and thorough. The Court

19

affirms the non-dispositive order because it is not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See

20

Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the

21

Court DENIES Ojmar’s motion for relief from Judge James’ non-dispositive pretrial order.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: 7/10/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

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
the motion.”)