Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01584/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01584-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark 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 - 06cv1848

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06-CV-1584 H (POR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO

AND MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

FEBRUARY 20, 2008 ORDER

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

INTERROGATORIES 

NOS. 8 & 9

[Doc. No. 139.]

vs.

MARC CHANTAL USA, INC., a Texas

corporation; MARC CHANTAL

AMERICA, INC., a Texas corporation;

and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

A district judge on timely objection by a party may modify or set aside a magistrate

judge’s nondispositive pretrial order if that order is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary

to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir.

1991). The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to the magistrate judge’s factual

determinations and discretionary decisions, see Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746,

748 (9th Cir. 1990), including rulings on discovery disputes where the magistrate judge is

afforded broad discretion. Cf. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004) (“rulings

concerning discovery are reviewed for abuse of discretion”); Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Case 3:06-cv-01584-H-POR Document 145 Filed 03/18/08 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 - 06cv1848

On March 5, 2008, plaintiff Brighton Collectibles, Inc., filed objections to and moved

for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s February 20, 2008 order denying motion to

compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 8 & 9, see Doc. No. 129. (Doc. No. 139.)

Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to compel

defendant Marc Chantal America, Inc. (“Marc Chantal”), to provide telephone numbers and

addresses for former Marc Chantal employees and sales representatives, who Marc Chantal

identified as witnesses in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9. On March 10,

2008, the Court submitted the matter on the papers pursuant to its discretion under Civil Local

Rule 7.1(d)(1). (Doc. No. 143.) Marc Chantal filed a response in opposition on March 17,

2008. (Doc. No. 144.) 

After due consideration of the magistrate judge’s order, the parties’ briefs in

connection with Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and the briefs submitted by each party

regarding the present motion, the Court concludes that no portion of the magistrate judge’s

order is clearly erroneous, contrary to law or an abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a). Accordingly, the Court declines to modify or set aside any portion of that order.

Additionally, the Court clarifies that the pretrial conference in this case is scheduled

for Monday, April 28, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. in courtroom 13. (See Doc. No. 68.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2008

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-01584-H-POR Document 145 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2