Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07233/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07233-4/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

---

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 

 1 

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 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

WERIDE CORP., et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KUN HUANG, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 5:18-cv-07233-EJD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER 

Re: Dkt. No. 281 

Defendants ZZX and AllRide move for relief from Magistrate Judge Cousins’s nondispositive, pretrial Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (the 

“Order”). Dkt. No. 252. The court has reviewed ZZX and AllRide’s motion, the Order, and the 

briefing underlying the Order. The court denies the motion. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that a party may file a motion for relief 

from a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order and that the district judge must modify or set aside 

any part of the magistrate judge’s order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. “When 

reviewing discovery disputes, however, the Magistrate is afforded broad discretion, which will be 

overruled only if abused.” Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. Cal. 

2007) (collecting cases). 

During the parties’ discovery disputes before Magistrate Judge Cousins, ZZX and AllRide 

raised a general objection to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to the extent those requests implicated 

Chinese law. Now, they contend that Magistrate Judge Cousins erred in overruling that general 

objection because they have not withheld any documents based on the objection. So, they argue, 

the issue was not ripe. Magistrate Judge Cousins, though, found that “[a]lthough [Plaintiffs’] 

Case 5:18-cv-07233-EJD Document 289 Filed 09/18/19 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 

 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

document requests have been outstanding for months, ZZX and AllRide have not identified any 

specific documents that they claim are subject to Chinese law, nor have they presented any ‘expert 

testimony or other authority’ to support such an objection.” Order at 8. Thus, the Order is based 

on sound reasoning and the parties’ conduct in discovery. As such, it was not an abuse of 

discretion to overrule ZZX and AllRide’s general objection. See Hawkins v. Kroger Co., 2019 

WL 4416132, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2019) 

ZZX and AllRide next argue that Magistrate Judge Cousins erred by not sufficiently 

considering the Aerospatiale factors. However, ZZX and AllRide never raised the factors in their 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge, despite Plaintiffs twice raising them. See Dkt. Nos. 149, 

157. Even assuming their characterization of the Order is correct, ZZX and AllRide cannot refuse 

to engage an issue before the Magistrate Judge and then complain that the Magistrate Judge did 

not sufficiently consider the issue. 

Accordingly, ZZX and AllRide’s motion for relief from non-dispositive pretrial order is 

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 18, 2019 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:18-cv-07233-EJD Document 289 Filed 09/18/19 Page 2 of 2