ClearPlay v. Dish Network LLC et al

Filing 565

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER overruling 550 Objections; finding as moot 553 MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Hearing Regarding Objection. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 12/6/22 (alt)

Case 2:14-cv-00191-DN-CMR Document 565 Filed 12/06/22 PageID.28723 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CLEARPLAY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISH NETWORK, LLC, and ECHOSTAR
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
TO ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
AND
FINDING AS MOOT MOTION TO
EXPEDITE
Case No. 2:14-cv-00191-DN-CMR
District Judge David Nuffer

On November 10, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero issued an
oral order, 1 which granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike 2 regarding Defendants’ supplemental
usage data and Defendants’ attempted disclosure of Rob Saddler as a fact witness. Defendants
objected to the portion of the order which struck Defendants’ supplemental usage data arguing
that the order is clearly erroneous and contrary to law (“Objection”). 3 And Defendants requested
expedited briefing and a hearing regarding their Objection (“Motion to Expedite”). 4
De novo review has been completed of those portions of Judge Romero’s order, findings,
and conclusions to which objection was made, including the record that was before Judge

Minute Entry for Proceedings Held Before Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero, docket no. 546, filed Nov. 10,
2022; Transcript of Oral Ruling Via Zoom Taken From Electronic Court Audio Nov. 10, 2022 at 11:13-17:7, docket
no. 552-2, filed under seal Nov. 28, 2022.

1

2

Docket no. 492, filed Sept. 15, 2022, docket no. 494, filed under seal Sept. 15, 2022.

Dish’s Objection to Dkt. 546 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (“Objection”), docket no. 550, filed Nov. 28,
2022, docket no. 552, filed under seal Nov. 28, 2022.
3

Motion for Expedited Briefing and Hearing Regarding Dish’s Objection to Dkt. 546 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike (“Motion to Expedite”), docket no. 553, filed Nov. 28, 2022.

4

Case 2:14-cv-00191-DN-CMR Document 565 Filed 12/06/22 PageID.28724 Page 2 of 2

Romero and the reasoning set forth in the oral order. 5 Neither a response from Plaintiff nor a
hearing is necessary for the resolution of Defendants’ Objection. 6
Judge Romero’s findings are supported by the record. Judge Romero applied the correct
legal standard in her analysis of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. And Judge Romero’s conclusions
logically flow from her findings and analysis. Therefore, the findings, analysis, and conclusions
of Judge Romero’s November 10, 2022 oral order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike are not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 7 Defendants’ Objection 8 is overruled.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Objection 9 is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Briefing and
Hearing 10 regarding their Objection is MOOT.
Signed December 6, 2022.
BY THE COURT
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge

5

28 U.S.C. § 636(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).

6

DUCIVR 72-3(b), (c).

7

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).

8

Docket no. 550, filed Nov. 28, 2022, docket no. 552, filed under seal Nov. 28, 2022.

9

Docket no. 550, filed Nov. 28, 2022, docket no. 552, filed under seal Nov. 28, 2022.

10

Docket no. 553, filed Nov. 28, 2022.

2