Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01689/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01689-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange 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

- 1 - 08cv1689

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re NOVATEL WIRELESS

SECURITIES LITIGATION

CASE NO. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB)

ORDER AFFIRMING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

DISCOVERY ORDER

On November 19, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ request

to take additional depositions in this securities litigation case. (Doc. No. 244.) On December

3, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s November 19, 2010 Order.

(Doc. No. 247.) On December 6, 2010, the Court directed Defendants to file a response in

opposition to Plaintiffs’ objection by 9:00 a.m. on December 8, 2010, and set a telephonic

hearing on the matter for December 8, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. (Doc. No. 248.) On December 8,

2010, Defendants filed their response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ objection. (Doc. No. 249.)

The Court held a telephonic hearing on December 8, 2010. Douglas Britton appeared for the

Plaintiffs. Travis Biffar appeared for the Defendants. After due consideration, the Court

overrules Plaintiffs’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s discovery order. 

Discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918,

926 (9th Cir. 2004). The District Judge may review a ruling by a Magistrate Judge on any nondispositive pretrial matter if it “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). After a careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, the

Case 3:08-cv-01689-AJB-RBB Document 252 Filed 12/08/10 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 - 08cv1689

Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objection to the discovery order and affirms the Magistrate Judge’s

order without prejudice to a specific showing based on new facts or new law. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2010

____________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-01689-AJB-RBB Document 252 Filed 12/08/10 Page 2 of 2