SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. DROPBOX INC., 16-cv-00119-HSG. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171025d46
Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 142 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . On September 5, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied Plaintiff's request to strike portions of a declaration by Defendant's expert, Dr. Michael J. Freedman, and granted Defendant's request to strike the declaration of Christopher Alpaugh, Plaintiff's expert. Dkt. No. 141. On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from Judge
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 142 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . On September 5, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied Plaintiff's request to strike portions of a declaration by Defendant's expert, Dr. Michael J. Freedman, and granted Defendant's request to strike the declaration of Christopher Alpaugh, Plaintiff's expert. Dkt. No. 141. On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from Judge ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 142
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
On September 5, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied Plaintiff's request to strike portions of a declaration by Defendant's expert, Dr. Michael J. Freedman, and granted Defendant's request to strike the declaration of Christopher Alpaugh, Plaintiff's expert. Dkt. No. 141. On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from Judge Westmore's order. Dkt. No. 142. On September 29, 2017, Defendant filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 146. The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Westmore's order, Plaintiff's motion, Defendant's opposition, and the relevant legal authorities. Judge Westmore's order is well-reasoned and thorough. The Court affirms the non-dispositive order because it is not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for relief from Judge Westmore's non-dispositive pretrial order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
