Yuntek International, Inc. v. Xiamen JXD Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 26, 2022
• Docket: 4:20-cv-07201
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YUNTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 20-cv-07201-JSW

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 14 XIAMEN JXD ELECTRONIC JUDGE COMMERCE CO., LTD., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 119 15 Defendants.

16 17 The Court has received Plaintiff Yuntek International, Inc.’s motion for relief from a 18 nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge. Plaintiff seeks relief from Magistrate Judge 19 Illman’s discovery order dated Ap4il 4, 2022 (“Discovery Order”). (Dkt. No. 117.) 20 The Court HEREBY DENIES the motion for relief from the Discovery Order. The 21 District Court may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate’s ruling on non-dispositive pre- 22 trial motions found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also, 23 e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). A ruling is 24 clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after considering the evidence, is left with the “definite 25 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 26 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). “A decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard or 27 fails to consider an element of the applicable standard.” Na Pali Haweo Cmty. Ass’n v. Grande, 1 Discovery Order to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. RDERED. 2 ITISSOO 3 || Dated: April 26, 2022 fo fy Nt JEFFRBY S. WHITE 5 / (Uni id States strict Judge 6 Lf 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16 & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28