Cpc Patent Techs. Pty Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 34 F.4th 801

CPC Patent Technologies filed a standalone 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application in the Northern District of California seeking Apple, Inc. documents for use in anticipated German litigation against an Apple affiliate.
The matter was assigned to a magistrate judge, who denied CPC’s application as unduly burdensome and cited ongoing related litigation between the parties in the Western District of Texas.
CPC asked the district court for de novo review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72; the district court instead reviewed the magistrate judge’s denial under the deferential "clear error" standard and affirmed.
The Ninth Circuit held the magistrate judge’s denial was a dispositive ruling because it denied the only relief CPC sought in federal court (court-ordered discovery).
Because the parties had not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over dispositive matters, the magistrate judge lacked authority to enter a binding denial; the district court should have treated the magistrate’s order as a non-binding recommendation and reviewed it de novo.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for the district court to apply the correct standard of review and determine whether further proceedings are warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a magistrate judge’s denial of a § 1782 application is dispositive	Denial is dispositive because it denies the only federal relief sought (discovery)	Non-dispositive like ordinary discovery; magistrate may decide	Dispositive: denial disposes of the federal case and thus required de novo review by the district court
Proper standard of review for district court on magistrate’s § 1782 ruling	De novo review of magistrate recommendation under § 636(b)(1)(B) / Rule 72(b)	Deferential review (clear error / abuse of discretion) of magistrate decision	De novo: district court must treat magistrate order as recommendation and review de novo because matter is dispositive
Appellate jurisdiction over district court order denying § 1782 relief	§ 1291 finality: district court’s denial is final because it leaves nothing for federal court to resolve	Points to narrow exceptions where subpoena issued to a foreign-party litigant	Appellate jurisdiction exists under § 1291; denial is final for federal proceedings
Validity of opposing authorities (e.g., Four Pillars)	Four Pillars did not decide dispositive/non-dispositive issue and is not controlling	Four Pillars suggests deferential standard applied previously	Four Pillars not dispositive here because it never addressed whether § 1782 rulings are dispositive for magistrate authority

Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2015) (explains dispositive vs non-dispositive dichotomy under § 636)
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (procedural standards for magistrate handling of pretrial matters)
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (standard for § 1782: proceedings within reasonable contemplation)
In re Premises Located at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2011) (§ 1782 orders are generally appealable as final decisions)
SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2013) (dispositive if it denies ultimate relief sought)
Four Pillars Enterprises Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2002) (magistrate § 1782 denial reviewed for abuse of discretion but did not address dispositive question)
Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, 931 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2019) (discusses § 1782 practice; includes separate opinion addressing standard of review)
Mitchell v. Valenzuela, 791 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2015) (remand required when district court applied incorrect standard to magistrate ruling)