Apple Inc. v. WI-LAN Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 APPLE INC., CASE NO. 14cv2235 DMS (BLM) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER SUSTAINING APPLE’S vs. OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE 12 JUDGE’S NOVEMBER 7, 2019 13 WI-LAN, INC., DISCOVERY ORDER 14 Defendant. _______________________________ 15 AND ALL RELATED 16 COUNTERCLAIMS. 17 18 This case comes before the Court on Apple's objections to Magistrate Judge 19 Barbara Major’s November 7, 2019 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 20 Defendants’ Motion to Enforce the Court’s July 22, 2019 Order. Wi-LAN filed an 21 opposition to Apple's objections, and Apple filed a reply. After thoroughly reviewing 22 these briefs, the Magistrate Judge's Order and the relevant case law, the Court sustains 23 Apple's objections. 24 A magistrate judge's decision on a nondispositive issue is reviewed by the district 25 court under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard. 28 U.S.C. § 26 636(b)(1)(A); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v. NME 27 Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' 28 when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record 1 || is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United 2|| States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). In contrast, the 3 || “contrary to law" standard permits independent review of purely legal determinations 4|| by amagistrate judge. See e.g., Haines v. Liggetts Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 5 || 1992); Medical Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F.Supp. 717,719 6] (S.D. Cal. 1996). Thus, the district court should exercise its independent judgment with 7 || respect to a magistrate judge's legal conclusions. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 8 || 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). 9 Here, Apple argues the Magistrate Judge’s Order was clearly erroneous, and 10 || Apple is no longer relying on FaceTime as a noninfringing alternative, which renders 11 the sought-after discovery irrelevant. The Court agrees with the latter argument, and 12 || more importantly, agrees with Apple’s other argument that the sought-after discovery 13 || is no longer relevant in light of this Court’s ruling on Apple’s Daubert motion. That 14 || ruling excluded Wi-LAN’s benefits methodology of damages, which was the relevance 15 | “hook” for the sought-after discovery. That “hook” has now been removed, and thus 16 || Apple need not conduct any further searches or produce any further documents pursuant 17 || to Wi-LAN’s requests or the Magistrate Judge’s Order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 27, 2019 20 Yn: 4. 21 HON. DANA M. SABRAW 9 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 14cv2235