UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 12, 2010
CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL GMBH AND CARL ZEISS VISION INC., PLAINTIFFS,
SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER OVERRULING ORDER PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DECEMBER 1, 2009 DISCOVERY AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
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 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.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.