Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carl Zeiss Vision International v. Signet Armorlite

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 16, 2010

CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL AND CARL ZEISS VISION INC., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

ORDER OVERRULING ORDER DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO DECEMBER 1, 2009 DISCOVERY

This case comes before the Court on Defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter's December 1, 2009 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Joint Discovery Motion. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendant's objection. Defendant filed an ex parte application to file a response to Plaintiffs' opposition, and Plaintiffs filed an opposition thereto. After reviewing these briefs, the Court overrules Defendant's objection, and denies Defendant's ex parte application to file a responsive brief.

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).

Defendant's objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order does not establish that the Magistrate Judge's rulings were either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendant's objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100216

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.