Filed: Nov. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Re: Dkt. No. 339 LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . On October 31, 2016, Defendants Two Pic MC LLC, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Pixar, and The Walt Disney Company (collectively, "Defendants"), filed a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd. ECF No. 339. On November 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion. ECF No. 342. Having reviewed the order, the briefing
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Re: Dkt. No. 339 LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . On October 31, 2016, Defendants Two Pic MC LLC, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Pixar, and The Walt Disney Company (collectively, "Defendants"), filed a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd. ECF No. 339. On November 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion. ECF No. 342. Having reviewed the order, the briefing ..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Re: Dkt. No. 339
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
On October 31, 2016, Defendants Two Pic MC LLC, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Pixar, and The Walt Disney Company (collectively, "Defendants"), filed a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd. ECF No. 339. On November 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion. ECF No. 342.
Having reviewed the order, the briefing of the parties, the record in the case, and the relevant law, the Court finds that the nondispositive pretrial order is not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion for relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
