Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03044/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03044-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JSR MICRO, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 09-3044 PJH

v. ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS

TO MAY 14, 2010 NON-DISPOSITIVE

QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, SANCTIONS ORDER

Defendant.

_______________________________/

The court is in receipt of defendant’s written objections to the non-dispositive pretrial

order issued May 14, 2010 by the Magistrate Judge. By way of their filing, defendant

requests that the court rescind the Magistrate Judge’s order or alternatively, issue an order

setting a briefing schedule with respect to defendant’s objections, and thereafter issue an

order taking the objections under submission for resolution at the close of the case.

Having reviewed defendant’s objections, the court hereby orders further briefing on

the matter. To that end, plaintiff shall prepare a written response to defendant’s objections,

to be filed no later than June 18, 2010. Once plaintiff’s response is filed, the matter will

thereafter be deemed submitted and the court’s decision on defendant’s objections will be

stayed until after either the close of discovery, or the end of litigation. 

This is intended to prevent either party from claiming a strategic advantage in

connection with any court ruling on the matter, and because in view of the parties’ conduct

throughout this litigation thus far, it is possible additional discovery and sanctions motions

may be brought. In such a case, the court would prefer to deal with all non-substantive

matters at the same time, at the end of the case. The court also indicated to the parties at

the prior case management conference that the court is unlikely to rule on such issues until

Case 4:09-cv-03044-PJH Document 135 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

the end of the action. 

While briefing on defendant’s objections is required in view of the sheer size of the

sanctions awarded, neither party should make any assumptions regarding the court’s

intention in requiring a further response and submitting the matter for resolution. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2010

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-03044-PJH Document 135 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 2