Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

In opposing the Dunbar defendants’ motion to strike, plaintiff relied on, inter alia, declarations by both Hadas and Trope. The declarations filed in support of the Objections

contain new factual assertions.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC INFORMATION RESOURCES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DIANA MUSSELMAN, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C 05-3148 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ZIMMERMAN’S MARCH 28, 2008

ORDER

Before the Court are plaintiff’s “Objections Under FRCP 72 to Magistrate Judge’s

Discovery Order,” filed April 7, 2008, and amended April 8, 2008 (“Objections”), by which

plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Zimmerman’s order of March 28, 2008, to the extent

such order granted the Dunbar defendants’ motion to strike two rebuttal reports. The

Objections are based in substantial part on evidence not submitted to Magistrate Judge

Zimmerman, specifically, (1) the declaration of Ran Libeskind Hadas, Ph.D (“Hadas”), filed

April 7, 2008, and (2) the declaration of Konrad L. Trope (“Trope”), filed April 8, 2008.1

 As

a consequence, the “Objections” are, in substance, a motion for reconsideration based on

newly-offered evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 285 Filed 04/11/08 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

Accordingly, the Objections are hereby DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing

a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, to be presented to Magistrate Judge

Zimmerman. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2) (providing motion for leave to file motion for

reconsideration of order may be appropriate in light of “emergence of new material facts”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 285 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 2