Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-47/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 MOTIONS FOR 

RELIEF FROM ORDERS ON 

NONDISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 345, 346, 347

On December 28, 2015, Plaintiff Loop AI Lab Inc.’s filed three motions to set aside the 

Magistrate Judge’s orders regarding discovery. See Dkt. Nos. 345, 346, 347. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a district judge may set aside a magistrate 

judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The magistrate’s factual determinations are 

reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether 

they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The 

Court can overturn the “magistrate’s factual determinations only if the court reaches a definite and 

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). “This standard is extremely deferential and the [m]agistrate’s rulings should be 

considered the final decisions of the [d]istrict [c]ourt.” Otey v. CrowdFlower, Inc., No. 12-CV05524-JST, 2013 WL 3456942, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) 

(alterations in the original); see Real Action Paintball, Inc. v. Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., 

LLC, No. 14-CV-02435-MEJ, 2014 WL 5829374, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2014) (“A magistrate 

judge’s resolution of a discovery dispute is ‘entitled to great deference.’”). 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 387 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

First, Plaintiff moves for relief from the Magistrate Judge’s Order relating to jurisdictional 

discovery entered on December 11, 2015 at page 1 of Dkt. No. 323 (the “Jurisdictional Discovery 

Order”). Dkt. No. 345. Plaintiff contends that the Jurisdictional Discovery Order fails to require 

Defendants to respond to documentary discovery requests, fails to give Plaintiff enough time to 

obtain and review discovery before taking depositions, and unreasonably restricts the number and 

hours of depositions. Id. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s contention and the relevant authority, the 

Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met its burden to show that the Magistrate Judge’s order was 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the Jurisdictional 

Discovery Order is DENIED. Dkt. No. 345. 

Second, Plaintiff moves for relief from the Court’s order quashing or granting Defendant 

Almawave USA Inc.’s protective orders relating to (1) subpoenas issued to Orrick Herrington & 

Sutcliffe LLP (“Orrick”), see Dkt. 323 at 2, Dkt. 335 at 63-67 and 69-72, and Dkt. 320 (the 

“Orrick Order”), and (2) a subpoena issued to Venable LLP (“Venable”), see Dkt. 323 at 2 and 

Dkt. 335 at 77-82 (the “Venable Order”). The Magistrate Judge’s orders relating to privilege 

waiver, privilege logs, and attorney-client privilege were not in clear error or contrary to law. 

Additionally, the Court finds that the Venable Order, granting the motion to quash without 

prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to make an adequate showing under Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 

F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986), was not legally erroneous. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to set 

aside the Orrick Order and the Venable Order is DENIED. Dkt. No. 346. 

Finally, Plaintiff moves for relief from the Court’s order regarding the date of the Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition. Dkt. No. 347. Plaintiff contends that the Court did not request briefing or 

give notice before setting the deposition date, that it is “materially impossible to prepare any 

witness for the requested deposition topics and subtopics,” and that the date should be postponed 

because Plaintiff “has been seeking leave to move for a protective order” since last July. Id. at 1. 

Defendants’ response states that they do not object to Plaintiff’s request to move the deposition 

date, so long as the deposition of Gianmauro Calafiore proceeds as scheduled on January 25, 

2016. Dkt. No. 352 at 2. Because the Magistrate Judge’s order regarding the deposition date is 

not in clear error or contrary to law, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s request to change the deposition 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 387 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

date. This motion is also DENIED. Dkt. No. 347. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/15/2016

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 387 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 3