Opinion
20-cv-07201-JSW
04-27-2022
YUNTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. XIAMEN JXD ELECTRONIC COMMERCE CO., LTD., et al., Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE: DKT. NOS. 93, 117, 119
JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has received Plaintiff Yuntek International, Inc.'s motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge. Plaintiff seeks relief from Magistrate Judge Illman's discovery order dated April 4, 2022 (“Discovery Order”). (Dkt. No. 117.)
The Court HEREBY DENIES the motion for relief from the Discovery Order. The District Court may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate's ruling on non-dispositive pretrial motions found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also, e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). A ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after considering the evidence, is left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). “A decision is ‘contrary to law' if it applies an incorrect legal standard or fails to consider an element of the applicable standard.” Na Pali Haweo Cmty. Ass'n v. Grande, 252 F.R.D. 672, 674 (D. Haw. 2008). Having reviewed the record, the Court does not find the Discovery Order to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law and HEREBY ADOPTS the Discovery Order in all aspects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.