Summary
rejecting the court's authority to issue a Rule 26 protective order to prevent witness harassment under a "reasonable fear of retaliation" standard and instead applying the Rule 65 preliminary injunction standard"
Summary of this case from Adams v. NaphCare, Inc.Opinion
Case No.: 2:13-cv-01282-JAD-NJK
02-11-2014
Memphis Invest, GP, Plaintiff v. Andrew Waite et al., Defendants
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 35]
and Denying Motion for Preliminary
Injunction [Doc. 28]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe's December 4, 2013, Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiff Memphis Invest, GP's Emergency Motion for Protective Order, which requests, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction against Defendant Andrew Waite. Doc. 35; Doc. 28. Judge Koppe recommended denying the preliminary injunction because "Plaintiff has not met at least two of the requisite four preliminary injunction factors." Doc. 31 at 7. Objections were due by December 21, 2013. Neither Memphis Invest nor any defendant objected to Judge Koppe's recommendation. "[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed." Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . .
Accordingly, and with good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Koppe's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 35] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Memphis Invest's Emergency Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 28] is DENIED consistent with this Order and Judge Koppe's Report and Recommendation.
_______________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge