ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Docket No. 156

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Defendants have moved for relief from Judge Spero's order of March 13, 2019. See Docket No. 155 (order). The motion is DENIED. Defendants have failed to show that the order is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law: the arguments now raised by Defendants were never presented to Judge Spero. See, e.g., Shim-Larkin v. City of N.Y., No. 17-mc-80019-YGR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110790, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2017) (noting that "plaintiff did not raise such arguments before Magistrate Judge Ryu, and has, therefore, waived them"); see also Greenhow v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 863 F.2d 633, 638-639 (9th Cir. 1988) ("[W]e do not believe that the Magistrates Act was intended to give litigants an opportunity to run one version of their case past the magistrate, then another past the district court. [¶] Arguments raised for the first time on appeal have traditionally been held to be barred, absent exceptional circumstances or a convincing explanation for the failure to present them to the court below."), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1992); Borden v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987) (concluding that the district court properly "refused to rule on [a] question [because] it had been waived by failing to raise it before the magistrate").

This order disposes of Docket No. 156.

IT IS SO ORDERED.