23 Cited authorities

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (1984) Cited 2,533 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may prohibit a newspaper that is party to a case from publishing information obtained through the discovery process
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union
466 U.S. 485 (1984) Cited 1,623 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 2,227 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the common-law and First Amendment presumptions of open records apply in civil cases; setting forth the standard under which such presumptions may be overcome
Carroll v. Princess Anne
393 U.S. 175 (1968) Cited 435 times
Holding that a First Amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot
Mosallem v. Berenson
76 A.D.3d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) Cited 358 times 3 Legal Analyses
Rejecting concern regarding embarrassment or damage to business reputation as a basis for sealing
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG
377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 428 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the details of a confidential settlement agreement disclosed during "a relatively informal conference relating to settlement," on the basis of the court's "assurances of confidentiality," warranted only a "weak" presumption of public access
In re Zyprexa Injunction
474 F. Supp. 2d 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 77 times 1 Legal Analyses
Enforcing a preliminary injunction requiring the return of sealed documents pursuant to the court's "inherent authority to enforce [its] orders"
United States v. Charmer Industries, Inc.
711 F.2d 1164 (2d Cir. 1983) Cited 134 times
Holding that presentence reports are generally not subject to public disclosure
Bridge C.A.T. Scan Associates v. Technicare Corp.
710 F.2d 940 (2d Cir. 1983) Cited 79 times
Holding that because the plaintiff's attorney had colleted the defendant's trade data prior to initiating the lawsuit, the information had been "gathered independenly of judicial process" and the court could not exercise control of over it
Fayemi v. Hambrecht and Quist, Inc.
174 F.R.D. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court "has the inherent authority to sanction a party who attempts to use in litigation material improperly obtained outside the discovery process"
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 508,086 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 169,931 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 96,831 times 669 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Cited 22,802 times 88 Legal Analyses
Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,384 times 130 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 Cited 7,674 times 2 Legal Analyses
Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 636 - Income tax treatment of mineral production payments
26 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 63 times
Requiring objections be filed within fourteen days of being served with a copy of a report and recommendation

Kriss et al v. Bayrock Group LLC et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding that a court may prohibit a newspaper that is party to a case from publishing information obtained through the discovery process

Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"

Holding that the common-law and First Amendment presumptions of open records apply in civil cases; setting forth the standard under which such presumptions may be overcome

Holding that a First Amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot

Rejecting concern regarding embarrassment or damage to business reputation as a basis for sealing

Holding that the details of a confidential settlement agreement disclosed during "a relatively informal conference relating to settlement," on the basis of the court's "assurances of confidentiality," warranted only a "weak" presumption of public access

Enforcing a preliminary injunction requiring the return of sealed documents pursuant to the court's "inherent authority to enforce [its] orders"

Holding that presentence reports are generally not subject to public disclosure

Holding that because the plaintiff's attorney had colleted the defendant's trade data prior to initiating the lawsuit, the information had been "gathered independenly of judicial process" and the court could not exercise control of over it

Holding that the court "has the inherent authority to sanction a party who attempts to use in litigation material improperly obtained outside the discovery process"

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Requiring objections be filed within fourteen days of being served with a copy of a report and recommendation