Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-110/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE 

ORDER DKT. NO. 665

Re: Dkt. No. 707

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Magistrate Ryu’s Order relating to a 

dispute that arose during Defendant Anna Gatti’s deposition, Dkt. No. 665, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s motion. Gatti answered the question that was the subject of the parties’ request for 

intervention, and any attempt by Plaintiff to compel the production of documents after the close of 

fact discovery is inappropriate. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Magistrate Ryu’s order is not clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial 

matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Civ. L.R. 72–2; United 

States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that with respect to 

discovery disputes and other nondispositive orders, a magistrate judge’s decision is “entitled to 

great deference”); Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(“The reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

7/19/2016

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 839 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 1