Express Diagnostics Int'l, Inc. v. Tydings et al

Filing 343

ORDER re 338 Objection, filed by Express Diagnostics Int'l, Inc., 337 Objection, filed by Express Diagnostics Int'l, Inc.. Signed by Judge James Ware on May 15, 2009. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Express Diagnostics Int'l, Inc., v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 06-01346 JW ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Barry Tydings, et al., Defendants. / On April 13, 2009, Magistrate Judge Trumbull issued an order denying several of Plaintiff's motions to compel, without prejudice subject to renewal following the parties' adherence to the meet and confer requirement of the Court's Civil Local Rules. (Docket Item No. 336.) Presently before the Court are two Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumbull's Order Denying, Without Prejudice, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses and Documents from Defendants. (Docket Item Nos. 337-38.) Plaintiff contends that Judge Trumbull erred in denying its Motion to Compel on the basis of Plaintiff's failure to abide by the applicable meet and confer requirement. A district court may modify a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive matter, such as an order to compel discovery, if the order is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2, the court may not grant a motion objecting to a Magistrate Judge's order without first giving the opposing party an opportunity to brief the matter.1 Defendants Tydings and Kisera have filed oppositions to Plaintiff's objections. (See Docket Item Nos. 341-42.) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Upon review of Judge Trumbull's April 13 discovery order, the Court does not find that Judge Trumbull's ruling was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. At best, Plaintiff is complaining that Judge Trumbull's adherence to the meet and confer requirement was an example of putting form over substance. In so contending, however, Plaintiff does not contend that it had, in fact, met the requirement. Ultimately, the Court notes that Judge Trumbull denied Plaintiff's motions without prejudice, subject to renewal after demonstrating that the meet and confer requirement has been met. Assuming Plaintiff is capable of taking the steps outlined by Judge Trumbull, Plaintiff will have another opportunity to seek the discovery that it desires. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' objections to Judge Trumbull's April 13 Order are OVERRULED. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California Dated: May 15, 2009 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 JAMES WARE United States District Judge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Joanna R. Mendoza jmendoza@theiplawfirm.com Joseph Lawrence Strabala legal@quantumsi.com Martin H. Orlick mho@jmbm.com Richard Allen Nebb rnebb@vierramagen.com William N. Woodson wnw@fsowlaw.com Dated: May 15, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?