UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 8, 2010
IN RE NOVATEL WIRELESS SECURITIES LITIGATION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge United States District Court
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISCOVERY ORDER
On November 19, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying Plaintiffs' request to take additional depositions in this securities litigation case. (Doc. No. 244.) On December 3, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's November 19, 2010 Order. (Doc. No. 247.) On December 6, 2010, the Court directed Defendants to file a response in opposition to Plaintiffs' objection by 9:00 a.m. on December 8, 2010, and set a telephonic hearing on the matter for December 8, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. (Doc. No. 248.) On December 8, 2010, Defendants filed their response in opposition to Plaintiffs' objection. (Doc. No. 249.) The Court held a telephonic hearing on December 8, 2010. Douglas Britton appeared for the Plaintiffs. Travis Biffar appeared for the Defendants. After due consideration, the Court overrules Plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's discovery order.
Discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). The District Judge may review a ruling by a Magistrate Judge on any nondispositive pretrial matter if it "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). After a careful consideration of the parties' briefs, the Court overrules Plaintiffs' objection to the discovery order and affirms the Magistrate Judge's order without prejudice to a specific showing based on new facts or new law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.