8 Cited authorities

U.S. v. W.R. Grace
526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 370 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party's "discretion to investigate and present its case does not override the district court's authority to manage the trial proceedings — including by setting discovery and disclosure deadlines"
U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera
257 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 213 times
Holding that with respect to discovery disputes and other nondispositive orders, a magistrate judge's decision is "entitled to great deference"
U.S. v. Upton
856 F. Supp. 727 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) Cited 110 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government was not required to search the files of the Federal Aviation Administration and produce material responsive to defendants’ Brady and Rule 16 requests because "the United States Attorney's Office did not conduct a joint investigation with the other agencies whose records defendants seek," but noting that "[t]his ... does not leave defendants without recourse to relevant documents which these agencies may have; they are free to subpoena the agencies pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
U.S. v. Poindexter
727 F. Supp. 1470 (D.D.C. 1989) Cited 57 times
Denying motion to compel documents of "tangential relevance . . . given the potential burdensomeness to the government of producing the documents"
U.S. v. Anderson
416 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.D.C. 2006) Cited 23 times
Concluding that the United States "must notify defendant of the evidence that it intends to use in its case-in-chief -- that is, the evidence that will appear on the government's exhibit list for trial" to satisfy rule 12(b)(B)
United States v. Turkish
458 F. Supp. 874 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) Cited 60 times
Granting motion where defendant was faced with a 25,000 document production under rule 16
United States v. Moalin
CASE NO. 10CR4246 JM (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012)
CASE NO. 10CR4246 JM 11-08-2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BASAALY SAEED MOALIN, et al., Defendants. Jeffrey T. Miller ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DENYING SAFE PASSAGE TO FARAH SHIDANE Defendants Basaaly Saeed Moalin, Mohamed Mohamed Mohamud, Issa Doreh, and Ahmed Nasir Taalil Mohamud jointly move to reconsider Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo's October 29, 2012 Order Denying Defendants' Joint Motion for Order of Safe Passage ("Order"). (Ct. Dkt. 220). The Government
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 498,240 times 39 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"

USA v. Liew et al

8 Cited authorities

Holding that a party's "discretion to investigate and present its case does not override the district court's authority to manage the trial proceedings — including by setting discovery and disclosure deadlines"

Holding that with respect to discovery disputes and other nondispositive orders, a magistrate judge's decision is "entitled to great deference"

Denying motion to compel documents of "tangential relevance . . . given the potential burdensomeness to the government of producing the documents"

Concluding that the United States "must notify defendant of the evidence that it intends to use in its case-in-chief -- that is, the evidence that will appear on the government's exhibit list for trial" to satisfy rule 12(b)(B)

Granting motion where defendant was faced with a 25,000 document production under rule 16

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"