Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
Relief from Magistrate Judge’s Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 72
The district court may designate any nondispositive pretrial matter to be determined by amagistrate judge, whose ruling on the matter will be modified or set aside only if “clearlyerroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); F
. R. C
. P. 72(a);
Grimes v. City &Cnty. of S.F.
, 951 F.3d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). Samsung argues that the
standard appliesto Order One because rulings “regarding privilege” are reviewed
. Samsung Motion One at2 (citing
Aronson v. McKesson HBOC, Inc.
, No. 99-CV-20743, 2005 WL 934331 at *3 (N.D. Cal.Mar. 31, 2005)). Samsung is incorrect. In Order One, in contrast to
, Magistrate JudgeGrewal did not make any “determinations regarding the scope of the attorney-client privilege” and thus this Court is not reviewing any finding by Magistrate Judge Grewal regarding privilege.
, 2005 WL 934331 at *3.In reviewing for clear error, the district judge may not simply substitute his or her judgmentfor that of the magistrate judge.
, 951 F.3d at 241
Rather, a magistrate judge’snondispositive ruling is clearly erroneous only when the district judge is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Burdick v. Comm’r Internal Rev. Serv.
, 979F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). “[A]ny motion not listed [under §636(b)(1)(A)], nor analogous toa motion listed in this category, falls within the nondispositive group of matters which a magistratemay determine.”
Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc.
, 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990) (citationsomitted).
B. Motion for Stay of Magistrate Judge Grewal’s Orders
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) vests the power to stay an order pending appeal withthe district court.
. R. C
. P. 62(c). For both the appellate court and the district court, “thefactors regulating the issuance of a stay are generally the same: (1) whether the stay applicant hasmade a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will beirreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other [parties’ interest] in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
Hilton v. Braunskill
,481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Deciding whether to grant a stay of an order pending an appeal is an
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2538 Filed10/15/13 Page3 of 15