Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-71/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 

PRETRIAL ORDER AT DKT. NO. 526

Re: Dkt. No. 529

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Magistrate Ryu’s Minute Order setting 

a deposition schedule, Dkt. No. 526, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. The Minute Order 

plainly 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

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 533 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 1