Sorensen v. Lexar Media, Inc.

Filing 119

ORDER re 118 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court,. Signed by Judge James Ware on January 16, 2009. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jens Erik Sorensen, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-00095 JW ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER United 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 Lexar Media, Inc., Defendant. / Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge Seeborg's December 22, 2008 Order re: Discovery Motions. (hereafter, "Objections," Docket Item No. 118.) On December 22, 2008, Magistrate Judge Seeborg ordered Plaintiff to produce drafts and proposals of various license agreements. (December 22, 2008 Order re: Discovery Motions at 3-4, hereafter, "Dec. 22 Order," Docket Item No. 117.) Plaintiff objects to Judge Seeborg's order, on the grounds that, inter alia, Judge Seeborg did not balance hardships, production will visit irreparable harm upon Plaintiff, the documents sought are not probative of any relevant issues, and the operative protective order fails to protect Plaintiff from harm. (Objections at 1-2.) 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. See Civ. L.R. 72-2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Upon review of the December 22 discovery order, the Court finds that Judge Seeborg considered the relevance of the requested documents and the burden of production on Plaintiff. Judge Seeborg specifically directed the parties to work together to minimize the burden of production. To the extent Plaintiff feels that the operative protective order is insufficient to minimize the harm of production to Plaintiff, the appropriate remedy is to seek modification of the protective order from Judge Seeborg. Accordingly, the Court finds that Judge Seeborg's ruling was not clearly erroneous and OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections to his December 22, 2008 Order re: Discovery Motions. Dated: January 16, 2009 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California JAMES WARE United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: James Michael Kaler michael@kalerlaw.com Jared Bobrow jared.bobrow@weil.com Joseph Hyuk Lee joseph.lee@weil.com Kimberly K. Dodd kdodd@foley.com Melody Ann Kramer mak@kramerlawip.com Dated: January 16, 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?