Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04770/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04770-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICREL INC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.

MICHAEL R. HSING, JAMES C. MOYER,

and DOES 1 through 20,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04770 JSW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS

AND AFFIRMING THE

DISCOVERY ORDER

Now before the Court are the objections filed by defendants Monolithic Power Systems,

Inc. (“MPS”), Michael R. Hsing (“Hsing”), and James C. Moyer (“Moyer”) (collectively

“Defendants”) to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero dated July 20, 2005 (the “Discovery

Order”). Having carefully reviewed Defendants’ papers and considered their arguments and the

relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’

objections and AFFIRMS the Discovery Order.

The District Court may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate’s ruling on nondispositive pre-trial motions found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a); see also, e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir.

1991). A ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after considering the evidence, is left

with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S.

Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). 

Case 3:04-cv-04770-JSW Document 86 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

After a careful review of the Discovery Order, this Court finds that Magistrate Judge

Spero’s ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, this Court DENIES

Defendants’ objections and AFFIRMS the Discovery Order dated July 20, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04770-JSW Document 86 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2