`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No.: 3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD
`
`ORDER OVERRULING
`OBJECTIONS TO
`DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY
`DISPUTE
`
`
`[Doc. No. 93]
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff NuVasive, Inc.’s objections to Magistrate
`
`Judge Dembin’s June 22, 2018 discovery order sustaining Defendant Alphatec Holdings,
`
`Inc.’s objections to two interrogatories and several document requests. District court
`
`review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. A district court
`
`judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion only “where
`
`it has been shown that the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28
`
`U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A magistrate judge’s legal
`
`conclusions are reviewable de novo to determine whether they are ‘contrary to law’ and
`
`findings of fact are subject to the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.” Meeks v. Nunez, Case No.
`
`13cv973-GPC(BGS), 2016 WL 2586681, *2 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2016) (citing Perry v.
`
`Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010)).
`
`“The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to the magistrate judge’s factual
`
`determinations and discretionary decisions . . . .” Computer Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Grp.,
`
`Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. May 25, 1999) (citations omitted). “Under this
`
`1
`
`3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 105 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.12198 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`standard, ‘the district court can overturn the magistrate judge’s ruling only if the district
`
`court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Id.
`
`(quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)).
`
`“The ‘contrary to law’ standard ‘allows independent, plenary review of purely legal
`
`determinations by the Magistrate Judge.’” Jadwin v. Cnty. of Kern, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1069,
`
`1110 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2011) (citing FDIC v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D.
`
`375, 378 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2000)); see also Computer Econ., 50 F. Supp. 2d at 983. A
`
`magistrate judge’s order “is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant
`
`statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Jadwin, 767 F. Supp. 2d at 1110-11 (quoting
`
`DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F. Supp. 2d 159, 163 (E.D.N.Y Oct. 17, 2006)).
`
`Upon review of the discovery requests in question, Magistrate Judge Dembin’s
`
`order, NuVasive’s objections, and Alphatec’s response, the Court is not persuaded that
`
`Magistrate Judge Dembin’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. NuVasive’s
`
`objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s discovery order are therefore OVERRULED.
`
`Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to NuVasive’s representation that it is in
`
`possession of documents and information regarding Patrick Miles’ activities that Alphatec
`
`produced to NuVasive in other litigation [Doc. No. 93-1 at 14], nothing in this order
`
`precludes NuVasive from using such documents and information in this litigation.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`20
`
`Dated: August 7, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`
`3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD
`
`