Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00894/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00894-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv0894

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL

GMBH and CARL ZEISS VISION INC.,,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv0894 DMS (POR)

ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO

DECEMBER 1, 2009 DISCOVERY

ORDER

vs.

SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC.,

Defendant. ____________________________________

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

Case 3:07-cv-00894-DMS-DHB Document 519 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv0894

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.

DATED: February 12, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00894-DMS-DHB Document 519 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2