CPC PATENT TECHS. PTY LTD. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16212 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Appellant CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd. (“CPC”) sought documents to use in a potential lawsuit in Germany against an affiliate of appellee Apple, Inc. CPC filed an application in federal court seeking to compel Apple to turn over these documents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782, which allows district courts to provide discovery assistance to foreign or international tribunals. After a magistrate judge denied the petition, a district judge reviewed the magistrate judge’s decision for clear error and declined to overturn it.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings because the district judge should have reviewed the magistrate judge’s decision de novo.
Applying 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) and its procedural counterpart, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72, the court held that CPC’s Section 1782 application was a dispositive matter because the magistrate judge’s order denied the only relief sought by CPC in this federal case: court-ordered discovery. Because both parties did not consent to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to enter an order denying the application, and the district court should have treated the magistrate judge’s ruling at most as a non-binding recommendation subject to de novo review. The court, therefore, remanded for the district court to apply the correct standard of review and left it to the district court to determine whether the case would benefit from further analysis and review by the magistrate judge.
Court Description: Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction / Application to. Compel Discovery The panel vacated a district judge’s order declining to overturn a magistrate judge’s denial of CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd.’s application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to compel Apple, Inc. to turn over documents, which CPC seeks to use in a potential lawsuit in Germany against an Apple affiliate, and remanded for further proceedings. The district judge reviewed the magistrate judge’s decision for clear error. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and its procedural counterpart, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the panel held that CPC’s § 1782 application was a dispositive matter because the magistrate judge’s order denied the only relief sought by CPC in this federal case: court-ordered discovery. Because both parties did not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to enter an order denying the application, and the district court should have treated the magistrate judge’s ruling at most as a non-binding recommendation subject to de novo review. The panel therefore remanded for the district court to apply the correct standard of review, and left it to the district court to determine whether the case would benefit from further analysis and review by the magistrate judge. CPC PATENT TECH. V. APPLE 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.