Yuntek International, Inc. v. Xiamen JXD Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 YUNTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 20-cv-07201-JSW 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER DENYING 13 v. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 14 XIAMEN JXD ELECTRONIC OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE COMMERCE CO., LTD., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 93, 117, 119 Defendants.

17 The Court has received Plaintiff Yuntek International, Inc.’s motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge. Plaintiff seeks relief from Magistrate Judge Illman’s discovery order dated April 4, 2022 (“Discovery Order”). (Dkt. No. 117.)

20 The Court HEREBY DENIES the motion for relief from the Discovery Order. The District Court may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate’s ruling on non-dispositive pre- trial motions found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also, e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). A ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after considering the evidence, is left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 26 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). “A decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard or fails to consider an element of the applicable standard.” Na Pali Haweo Cmty. Ass’n v. Grande, Discovery Order to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law and HEREBY ADOPTS the Discovery Order in all aspects.

ITI RDERED.

3 SSOO || Dated: April 27, 2022 | / é JEFFRBY S. WHITE 6 fUnitid States Pilstrict Judge 7 if

© = 17 Z 18