Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06520/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06520-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

RITA C HO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK PINSUKANJANA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06520-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 80

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2 for relief from 

a discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson. 

A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order is conducted under a 

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate 

judge's resolution of a discovery dispute is “entitled to great deference.” Doubt v. NCR 

Corp., No. 09–cv–5917–SBA, 2011 WL 5914284, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). A 

district court should not overturn a magistrate judge’s order simply because it “might have 

weighed differently the various interests and equities,” but rather “must ascertain whether 

the order was contrary to law.” See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 

2004). 

The court finds nothing in Judge Hixson’s order that is erroneous or contrary to 

law. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and the motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2019

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 81 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 1