Filed: Dec. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , District Judge . On September 11, 2017, Valencell, Inc. ("Valencell") moved to set aside portions of Magistrate Judge Gates's order of August 28, 2017. See [D.E. 219]. On September 25, 2017, Apple, Inc. ("Apple") responded in opposition. See [D.E. 226]. The court has reviewed the order of August 28, 2017, the record, and the briefs. The order is not "clearly erroneous" or "contraryto law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). The record amp
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , District Judge . On September 11, 2017, Valencell, Inc. ("Valencell") moved to set aside portions of Magistrate Judge Gates's order of August 28, 2017. See [D.E. 219]. On September 25, 2017, Apple, Inc. ("Apple") responded in opposition. See [D.E. 226]. The court has reviewed the order of August 28, 2017, the record, and the briefs. The order is not "clearly erroneous" or "contraryto law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). The record ampl..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge.
On September 11, 2017, Valencell, Inc. ("Valencell") moved to set aside portions of Magistrate Judge Gates's order of August 28, 2017. See [D.E. 219]. On September 25, 2017, Apple, Inc. ("Apple") responded in opposition. See [D.E. 226].
The court has reviewed the order of August 28, 2017, the record, and the briefs. The order is not "clearly erroneous" or "contraryto law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The record amply supports Judge Gates's findings and the governing law amply supports his conclusions. Accordingly, Valencecell's motion [D.E. 219] is DENIED. The court DENIES Valencell's motion to file a supplemental reply brief [D.E. 233] and Apple's motion for leave to file a sur-reply [D.E. 240]. The court GRANTS Apple's motion to refer the matter to Judge Gates to establish a schedule to complete discovery and file motions [D.E. 235].
SO ORDERED.
