APPLE INC., Plaintiff, v. RIVOS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 22-cv-02637-PCP United States District Court, N.D. California Filed August 29, 2023 Counsel Arturo J. Gonzalez, Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti, Meredith Lauren Angueira, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Franciso, CA; Bryan Joseph Wilson, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Stephen J. H. Liu, Palo Alto, CA; Matthew Robert Stephens, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Diego, CA; Ryan James Malloy, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Mary Prendergast, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Nicole Mary Ang (pro hac vice), Washington, DC Attorneys for Plaintiff Apple Inc. David Eiseman, IV and Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Defendants Jim Hardage, Kai Wang, Laurent Pinot, Prabhu Rajamani, Weidong Ye, and Wen Shih-Chieh David Eiseman, IV, Elle Xuemeng Wang, Ryan Sadler Landes, and Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Defendant Rivos Inc. Michael J. Peng, Todd Michael Lander, Rosen Saba LLP, El Segundo, CA Attorneys for Stephen Swedlow Pitts, P. Casey, United States District Judge ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Re: Dkt. No. 247 Having considered the August 9, 2023 discovery order by Judge Cousins, plaintiff Apple’s motion for relief from that order, and defendant Rivos’s response to Apple’s motion, the Court finds no clear error or ruling contrary to law in Judge Cousins’s conclusion that Rivos’s defensive disclosure of certain privileged communications in response to Apple’s motion for sanctions did not result in a broad waiver covering all otherwise privileged communications relating to the subjects on which Apple seeks to compel disclosure. Accordingly, Apple’s motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (permitting reconsideration only “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law”). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 29, 2023