*1 Before the Court is third-party Cell Surgical Networks' (“CSN”) objection to the Magistrate Judge's order for CSN to produce documents responsive to a CSN document subpoena. See ECF Nos. 145 (CSN's Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order), 146 (Plaintiff's Response in Opposition). In the motion, CSN argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by not requiring Plaintiff to file a motion to compel in response to CSN's objections to Plaintiff's subpoena.

The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, and therefore removes the matter from the January 27, 2023 calendar. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court DENIES the Motion and overrules the objections to the Magistrate Judge's order.

I. Background

In this patent action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,453,202 (“the '202 Patent”). The '202 Patent, titled “Methods of Preparing and Using Novel Stem Cell Compositions and Kits Comprising the Same,” issued on September 27, 2016. '202 Patent at Cover. The '202 Patent “provides novel stem cell compositions having significant therapeutic and practical advantages, as well as methods of preparing and using such compositions for the treatment and prevention of injury and disease in patients.” Id.

Previously the Court issued a Markman Order and deferred consideration of summary judgment of infringement until expert discovery is completed. See ECF Nos. 64, 118. Recently, the parties have requested, and the Court has entered, extensions to the case schedule. ECF Nos. 135, 143. The parties have continued to engage in discovery and Defendant has filed several motions to compel before the Magistrate Judge. The underlying Motion requesting review of the Magistrate Judge's Order at ECF No. 140 relates to one such dispute.

CSN is a closely related affiliate of Defendant. In connection with Plaintiff's attempts to obtain certain damages-related discovery from Defendant, Plaintiff also served a third-party subpoena on CSN seeking the same information. CSN responded by objecting to the subpoena. Defendant then raised the issues in its discovery update to the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge overruled CSN's objections and ordered CSN to comply with the subpoena. ECF No. 140 at 2-3 (Order on Plaintiff's Discovery Update and Motions to Compel). Based on this alleged procedural error, CSN objects to the order to the extent it orders production of documents between CSN and its other affiliates besides Defendant. ECF No. 145 at 4.

II. Legal Standards

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's ruling on nondispositive matters may set aside the magistrate judge's order only if that order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(a); see also United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he magistrate judge's decision in ... nondispositive matters is entitled to great deference by the district court.”).

*2 The Court reviews factual findings for clear error. Thus, the Court may not overturn a magistrate judge's factual finding simply because it would have reached a different result. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). The Supreme Court has cautioned that a factual finding by the magistrate judge is “clearly erroneous” only when the reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1260 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court reviews a magistrate judge's legal conclusions de novo, under the “contrary to law” standard. See China Nat. Metal Products Import/Export Co. v. Apex Digital, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

III. Analysis

CSN argues the Magistrate Judge's ruling is contrary to law because, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(ii), after CSN objected to the subpoena, the Magistrate Judge should have required Plaintiff to file a motion to compel rather than going straight to ruling on CSN's objections.

Plaintiff responds that CSN's argument is nothing more than form over substance. Plaintiff explains that the document subpoena sought information requested in earlier RFPs served on Defendant. The Magistrate Judge ordered Defendant to produce the requested information and overruled the substance of the same objections now raised in response to the CSN subpoena. Plaintiff contends that its Status Update Regarding Discovery, in which it discussed the CSN subpoena issue, including CSN's objections, was the equivalent of a motion to compel. Plaintiff also argues Defendant/CSN had every opportunity to respond and participate at the hearing. Plaintiff contends that if it filed a separate motion to compel on this issue, the outcome would have been the same.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Although Rule 45 contemplates a motion to compel following objections to a subpoena, the issue presented here is somewhat different. In the context of Plaintiff's RFPs, the parties have been litigating the substance of this issue before the Magistrate Judge for quite some time. When Defendant served a third-party subpoena on Defendant's closely related affiliate, CSN, in an attempt to get the information, the Magistrate Judge already ordered Defendant to produce, the issue arose again. Therefore, alongside other pending issues, Plaintiff raised it in the context of Plaintiff's Status Update Regarding Discovery. The record demonstrates that, functionally, Magistrate Judge treated this as a motion to compel, including by accepting written submissions and holding a hearing. Unsurprisingly, the Magistrate Judge overruled CSN's objections, which were the same objections Defendant raised to the RFPs earlier in this ongoing dispute.

CSN fails to explain how correcting this supposed legal error would lead to a different result. The Court finds it would not. Rather, it would burden the parties and the Magistrate Judge, and likely this Court, to require additional rounds of briefing on the same subject matter, an additional hearing, an additional written order granting a formalized motion to compel, and further objection to this Court, etc. The Court will not engage in this form over substance exercise when it would lead to this unnecessary waste of resources. Considering that the Magistrate Judge has ordered production of the relevant documents on three separate occasions, see ECF Nos. 125, 132, 140, the Court overrules the objection and likewise orders production of the required documents. The Motion is DENIED.

*3 IT IS SO ORDERED.