III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, DC’s motion should be denied. /// /// /// /// Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 231 Filed 05/02/11 Page 28 of 29 Page ID #:16134 23 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO F.R.C.P. 72 MOTION FOR REVIEW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: May 2, 2011 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Marc Toberoff TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants-Petitioners, Mark Warren Peary, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Shuster, Jean Adele Peavy, and Laura Siegel Larson Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 231 Filed 05/02/11 Page 29 of 29 Page ID #:16135

Diane Torosyan Case 2:07-cv-05715-CAS-PJW Document 443 Filed 12/16/14 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #:8609 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 491147.3 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SHAWN C. CARTER (PKA JAY-Z)’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF NON-DISPOSITIVE RULING OF MAGISTRATE UNDER FRCP 72(a) AND L.R. 72-2 SERVICE LIST Osama Ahmed Fahmy v. Jay-Z (aka Shawn Carter), et al. United States District Court, Western Division - Case No. 2:07-CV-05715 CAS (PJWx) Linda M. Burrow CALDWELL LESLIE 725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel.: (213)629-9040 Fax: (213)629-9022 Email: burrow@caldwell-leslie.com Attorneys for Defendant Jay-Z (aka Shawn Carter) Russell J. Frackman, Esq.

Thus, Verizon’s undue burden argument fails even if it was not waived and the Magistrate’s Order is not clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. V. Conclusion Verizon’s emergency motion to set aside should be denied because 1) it is procedurally improper as it fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 or Rule 2 of the Local Rules for U. S. Magistrate Judges, but instead seeks de novo review; 2) it raise new facts and arguments relating 4 Verizon also violated Rule 26(a)(1) by failing to identify that LiveVox had relevant call records. Case 1:16-cv-11512-DJC Document 104 Filed 09/15/17 Page 9 of 11 10 to its burden that a) are not accurate and b) it waved by not raising burden either in briefing or at the hearing for the motion to compel let alone supplying any facts to support the contention; 3) the court’s order is not clearly erroneous as evidenced by the dozens of courts that have entered similar orders in TCPA class actions; 4) the order is not an emergency but instead Verizon waited to the last possible day to file its motion when it asserted at the hearing it would seek review if the order, and 5) there is no undue burden.

Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 F. Supp. 202, 205 (1983). More significantly here, despite allowing the District Judge to “overturn any conclusions of law which contradict or ignore applicable precepts of law, as found in the Constitution, statutes or case precedent,” the review procedure does not convert this review from one to be taken pursuant to Rule 72(a) and Civil L.R. 72-2, with its five page and other limitations, into one pursuant to Rule 72(b) and Civil L.R. 72-3(b). Put simply, EFF’s abuse of the review process is inexcusable, and for this reason (as explained in Paxfire’s separate motion seeking such remedy) EFF’s instant motion should be struck.

Rule 72(a), which contains no authorization to consider evidence not submitted to a magistrate judge, applies where, as here, a magistrate judge resolves a “pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72(a). Accordingly, in v. Google, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43835 (D. Del. May 21, 2009).

Thus, as with the other factors, the public-interest factor weighs in favor of granting a stay so that Samsung is not required to disclose privileged materials before Magistrate Judge Grewal’s Orders have been subjected to appellate review. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court should stay the October 2, 2013 Orders pending resolution of Samsung’s objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and, if necessary, resolution of a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Federal Circuit. DATED: October 6, 2013 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis Charles K. Verhoeven Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis William C. Price Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document789 Filed10/07/13 Page6 of 6

Id. On appeal the Seventh Circuit held that Rule 72(b) requires de novo review by the district judge whenever a pretrial matter is "dispositive of a claim or defense of a party." The magistrate judge's order disposed of [Defendant's] defense of insufficient service of process, and the motion was potentially dispositive of [Plaintiff s] entire case.

This Court should only overturn the Order granting the Motion to Exclude Dr. Buffington if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” neither of which has Plaintiff even attempted to demonstrate in her Objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Lofton, 682 F. Supp. 2d at 666.1 Rather than re-litigate the many reasons why Dr. Buffington’s opinions are properly excluded from trial of this matter, Sandoz refers this Court to its Motion to Exclude Testimony of Daniel Buffington, Pharm.D.

Attorneys for NML Capital Ltd. Case 2:14-cv-00492-RFB-VCF Document 123 Filed 04/24/15 Page 32 of 33 B R O W N S T E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 10 0 N or th C it y P ar kw ay , S ui te 1 60 0 L as V eg as , N V 8 91 06 -4 61 4 70 2. 38 2. 21 01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.5(b), I certify that I am an employee of BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, and that the foregoing NML CAPITAL, LTD.’S RESPONSE TO VAL DE LOIRE LLC’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S ORDER PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 72 was served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the date and to the address shown below: Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq. CLEARY, GOTTLEIB, STEEN & HAMILTON, LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Counsel for Defendant The Republic of Argentina DATED this 24th day of April, 2015. /s/ Paula Kay an employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Case 2:14-cv-00492-RFB-VCF Document 123 Filed 04/24/15 Page 33 of 33

These circumstances suggest the distinct possibility that none of the statements in Sangalang II are supported by fact, and provide another substantial reason for the Court to order TBI to produce the contracts it has with creditors. WHEREFORE plaintiff requests that the Court strike the affidavit of Marian Sangalang that was submitted in support of The Bureaus, Inc.'s ("TBI") Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) objection because it (1) contains factual allegations and argument not submitted to the magistrate judge, (2) contains impermissible hearsay and (3) leaves out material facts, and order any other relief the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alexander H. Burke Alexander H. Burke BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 729-5288 (312) 729-5289 (fax) ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com www.BurkeLawLLC.com Case 1:09-cv-02558 Document 69 Filed 12/16/09 Page 7 of 12 Exhibit A Case 1:09-cv-02558 Document 69 Filed 12/16/09 Page 8 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DMSION TODD FlKE, on behalf of himself and ) others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) THE BUREAUS, INC. ) Case No. 09 C 2558 JUDGE DOW ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEYS Defendant. ) )