Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-mc-80213/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-mc-80213-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE APPLICATION OF MEDICAL 

RESEARCH COUNCIL FOR AN ORDER 

PERMITTING ISSUANCE OF 

SUBPOENAS TO TAKE DISCOVERY 

FOR USE IN FOREIGN PROCEEDING,

Petitioner.

Case No. 15-mc-80213-HSG 

ORDER REFFERRING DISCOVERY 

MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

AND DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL 

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 27

On December 29, 2015, Medical Research Council (“MRC”) filed a motion that purports 

to be a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order entered by Magistrate Judge Sallie 

Kim. See Dkt. No. 27. Genentech has not filed an opposition. For the following reasons, under 

Local Rule 72-1, this matter is REFERRED to Judge Kim for resolution of all outstanding 

discovery issues, and MRC’s motion is DENIED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, before entry of judgment, “any party may make a motion 

before a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration 

of any interlocutory order.” Civil L.R. 7-9 (a). The moving party must show reasonable diligence 

in bringing the motion and one of the following:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in 

fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before 

entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. 

The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence 

the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law 

at the time of the interlocutory order; or 

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law 

occurring after the time of such order; or 

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 

before such interlocutory order. 

Case 4:15-mc-80213-HSG Document 34 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Civil L.R. 7-9 (b). “No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave 

of Court to file the motion.” Civil L.R. 7-9 (a).

II. DISCUSSION

In its purported motion for relief, MRC argues that Genentech filed inaccurate and 

misleading documents and that the Magistrate Judge would have made a different determination if 

MRC were permitted to reply to Genentech’s documents. See Dkt. No. 27 at 1. Under Local Rule 

7-9, an argument that “a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to 

the Court” is properly brought as a motion for reconsideration before the judge that issued the 

interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9. Because MRC’s Motion is in truth a motion for 

reconsideration, the appropriate course is to seek leave from Judge Kim to file a motion for 

reconsideration. It is inappropriate for MRC to ask this Court to overturn the order based on facts 

it undisputedly never put before Judge Kim.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, this matter is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Kim for all outstanding 

discovery issues, and MRC’s motion for relief from the Magistrate Judge’s nondispositive pretrial

order is DENIED. If MRC desires to file a motion for reconsideration, it shall move for relief to 

do so before Magistrate Judge Kim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

2/2/2016

Case 4:15-mc-80213-HSG Document 34 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 2