Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04238/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04238-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PROOFPOINT, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VADE SECURE, INCORPORATED, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04238-MMC 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE

By order filed January 31, 2020 ("January 31 Order"), Magistrate Judge Robert M. 

Illman, in ruling on a dispute set forth in a letter brief submitted by the parties, found that 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than Hague Convention procedures, would 

govern discovery in the above-titled case.

Now before the Court is defendants' Motion, filed February 20, 2020, "for Relief 

From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge," whereby defendants seek an 

order vacating in part Magistrate Judge Illman's January 31 Order. That same date, 

however, defendants filed a "Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of 

Order," whereby defendants ask Magistrate Judge Illman to reconsider his January 31 

Order.

Under the circumstances, the Court finds defendants' Motion for Relief From 

Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge is premature, and, accordingly, said 

motion is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to renoticing, if appropriate, after resolution 

of the Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2020

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04238-MMC Document 125 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 1