Carl Zeiss Vision International GMBH et al v. Signet Armorlite Inc

Filing 519

ORDER overruling Plaintiffs' Objections to December 1, 2009 Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 2/12/10.(lao) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' objections to Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter's December 1, 2009 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Joint Discovery Motion. Defendant filed a response to Plaintiffs' objections. Plaintiffs did not file a reply. A magistrate judge's decision on a nondispositive issue is reviewed by the district court under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). "A finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). In contrast, the "contrary to law" standard permits independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. See -1CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL GMBH and CARL ZEISS VISION INC.,, vs. SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC., Defendant. ____________________________________ AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 07cv0894 DMS (POR) ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DECEMBER 1, 2009 DISCOVERY ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

07cv0894

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

e.g., Haines v. Liggetts Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992); Medical Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F.Supp. 717, 719 (S.D. Cal. 1996). Thus, the district court should exercise its independent judgment with respect to a magistrate judge's legal conclusions. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order do not establish that the Magistrate Judge's rulings were either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 12, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge

-2-

07cv0894