XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC

Filing 492

ORDER Overruling Plaintiffs' Objections and Adopting the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' Objections (ECF No. 371 ) are OVERRULED. The Recommendation (ECF No. 363 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Substitute Stipulation (ECF No. 315 ) is DENIED. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/8/2021.(trvo, )

Case 1:17-cv-00944-WJM-NYW Document 492 Filed 12/08/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 17-cv-0944-WJM-NYW
XY, LLC,
BECKMAN COULTER, INC., and
INGURAN, LLC d/b/a STGENETICS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TRANS OVA GENETICS, LC,
Defendant.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the December 5, 2018 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 363) that
the Court deny the Motion to Strike Substitute Stipulation (“Motion”) (ECF No. 315) filed
by Plaintiff XY, LLC (“XY”) and Inguran, LLC d/b/a STGentics (“Inguran”) (jointly,
“Plaintiffs”). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Plaintiffs filed “Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
on Their Motion to Strike Defendant’s Withdrawal of Infringement Stipulation”
(“Objections”) on December 19, 2018 (ECF No. 371); thereafter, Trans Ova Genetics,
LC (“Trans Ova”) filed “Trans Ova’s Response to XY’s Objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation on Its Motion to Strike Defendant’s Withdrawal of
Infringement Stipulation (Dkt. 371)” (“Response”) on December 28, 2018 (ECF No.

Case 1:17-cv-00944-WJM-NYW Document 492 Filed 12/08/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

373).
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, 1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge’s [recommendation] that has been properly
objected to.” An objection to a recommendation is properly made if it is both timely and
specific. United States v. 2121 East 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (10th Cir. 1996).
An objection is sufficiently specific if it “enables the district judge to focus attention on
those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Id. at
1059. In conducting its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
[recommendation]; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has fully considered all of the parties’ arguments set forth in the
briefing on the Motion, the Objections, and the Response. Upon conducting a de novo
review, the Court finds that Judge Wang’s analysis in the Recommendation was
thorough and well-reasoned. Accordingly, the Court adopts the reasoning set forth in
the Recommendation and overrules the Objections.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Objections (ECF No. 371) are OVERRULED;

2.

The Recommendation (ECF No. 363) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and

3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Substitute Stipulation (ECF No. 315) is DENIED.

Judge Wang recognized that “[t]he particular relief sought is not dispositive of any claim
or defense,” but she nonetheless proceeded by way of a Rule 72(b) Recommendation “because
the sought relief is inextricably intertwined with one of the arguments raised in Defendant’s
concurrently filed Motion for Summary Judgment.” (ECF No. 363 at 1–2 n.1.) Out of an
abundance of caution, the Court will likewise proceed under Rule 72(b).
1

2

Case 1:17-cv-00944-WJM-NYW Document 492 Filed 12/08/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

Dated this 8th day of December, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

______________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3