Sinco Technologies Pte Ltd. v. Sinco Electronics (Dongguan) Co. Ltd.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD., Case No. 17-cv-05517-EMC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING JEFFREY L.
9 v. FAZIO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
10 SINCO ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CO. LTD., et al., 11 Docket No. 263 Defendants. 12 13 14 Former counsel for Defendants, Mr. Jeffrey L. Fazio, proceeding pro per, has moved for 15 relief from Magistrate Judge Spero’s order of September 3, 2019, which issued sanctions against 16 him in his individual capacity in the amount of $1,500.00 for violating the Protective Order. See 17 Docket No. 267 (the “Order”). The Court DENIES Mr. Fazio’s motion. 18 Mr. Fazio has failed to show that the Order is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Grimes v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.3d 236, 241 20 (9th Cir. 1991). In reviewing for clear error, the district judge may not simply substitute his or her 21 judgment for that of…