§Why CasetextPricing

NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina

MOTION to Stay Magistrate Judge's Order

15 Cited authorities

  1. Hilton v. Braunskill

    481 U.S. 770 (1987)   Cited 3,018 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if the State makes a substantial case on the merits, continued custody is permissible if the second and fourth factors "militate against release"

  2. In re Edelman

    295 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 128 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner's service of a subpoena in the Southern District of New York on a respondent domiciled in France demonstrated that the respondent was "found" in the Southern District for purposes of § 1782

  3. Esparza v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

    200 F.R.D. 654 (D. Colo. 2001)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that there is no automatic stay of magistrate judge's discovery order pending resolution of objection by district judge

  4. First American Corp.

    182 F.R.D. 56 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 25 times
    Concluding that the court could not modify a subpoena that sought the appearance of residents of England for a deposition in New York to provide instead that the deposition take place in London because such a modification would "create a subpoena that does not issue from "the district in which the deposition is to be taken,'" in violation of Rule 45

  5. LT Int'l Ltd. v. Shuffle Master, Inc.

    Case No.: 2:12-cv-1216-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. Jul. 29, 2014)

    Case No.: 2:12-cv-1216-JAD-GWF 07-29-2014 LT International Ltd., Plaintiff, v. Shuffle Master, Inc., Defendant. JENNIFER A. DORSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Order Overruling Shuffle Master's Objections to Magistrate Judge Foley's Order on Non-Party DEQ's Motion to Quash [Doc. 64] Shuffle Master seeks to enforce a Rule 45 subpoena for testimony and documents that it propounded on DP Stud, the Nevada subsidiary of DEQ Systems, Corp, a Canadian company. DEQ moved to quash the subpoena under Rule

  6. Regents of University of California v. Kohne

    166 F.R.D. 463 (S.D. Cal. 1996)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that in considering when a non-party witness may be commanded by subpoena to appear, a court's only consideration is "the burden on the witness of being required to physically appear"

  7. White v. Burt Enterprises

    200 F.R.D. 641 (D. Colo. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    In White v. Burt Enterprises, 200 F.R.D. at 643, the court held that the filing of objections under Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., to an order of a magistrate judge concerning discovery issues does not stay the order or relieve a party of its obligation to comply with the order pending a decision on the objections.

  8. Advanced Microtherm v. Nor. Wright Mech. Equip. Corp.

    Case No. C 04-2266 JW (PVT) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2010)

    Case No. C 04-2266 JW (PVT). September 22, 2010 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NORMAN WRIGHT'S MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MAY OFFSET AMOUNT OF REASONABLE FEES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRIOR MOTIONS PATRICIA TRUMBULL, Magistrate Judge On September 21, 2010, Plaintiffs and Defendant Norman Wright Mechanical Equipment Corporation ("Norman Wright") appeared for hearing on Norman Wright's Motion for Contempt Order and for Monetary Sanctions. Based on the briefs and arguments

  9. Litton Industries, Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb Inc.

    124 F.R.D. 75 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)   Cited 17 times

    Stock buyer brought action alleging that defendants used inside knowledge to increase price of stock for acquisition of corporation. Action was assigned to magistrate for purposes of supervising discovery. Buyer filed objections to magistrate's orders. The District Court, Cannella, J., held that: (1) magistrate could modify scheduling order to expedite deposition of defendants' expert on damages, and (2) buyer's motion objecting to magistrate's orders did not stay buyer's obligations under those

  10. Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment

    28 U.S.C. § 636   Cited 513,122 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"

  11. Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 72   Cited 172,183 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

  12. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 97,825 times   674 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  13. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  14. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 17,099 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

  15. Rule 69 - Execution

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 69   Cited 4,062 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Adopting state law for procedures to execute judgments and obtain relevant discovery