Opinion
21-MC-374 (RA) (OTW)
12-14-2022
DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE LIGHTSTONE GROUP, LLC, Defendant.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HONORABLE RONNIE ABRAMS
ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge:
This report and recommendation supersedes ECF 86. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike ECF 86.
This miscellaneous case was opened here to compel compliance with a nonparty subpoena issued to The Lightstone Group, LLC, in connection with a civil case pending in the Northern District of Georgia, (Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Marriott International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01125) (the “Georgia Action”). I granted Delta's motion to compel on May 24, 2021. (ECF 37). Shortly thereafter, the parties filed motions to seal, which I resolved on the record at a status conference on July 21, 2021. (ECF 50). At the status conference, the parties represented that the outcome of a privilege ruling and a motion to compel in the Georgia Action might implicate some privilege designations in connection with Lightstone's production, and thus requested that the Court keep this action open until that issue was resolved. (ECF 50 at 4-8). For that purpose, I placed the parties on a schedule for monthly status letters. Lightstone made repeated requests that the case be closed in these status letters. (See, e.g., ECF 69, 70, 71). Recently, Judge Ross made several discovery rulings and set a firm discovery deadline in the Georgia Action. (ECF 72-1). In response to the Court's order, ECF 80, directing the parties in this action to identify any outstanding disputes related to Lightstone's document production, they identified a potential privilege designation concerning two email chains, represented to be Entry Nos. 2 and 3 on Lightstone's privilege log, which I reviewed in camera and resolved at ECF 85.
Because all outstanding disputes concerning Lightstone's subpoena response have been resolved, and any new disputes concerning a production ordered in the summer of 2021 would be untimely, I recommend that the case be CLOSED. See, e.g., Monsanto Co. v. Victory Wholesale Grocers, No. 08-MC-134, 2008 WL 5100178, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2008) (miscellaneous case closed after resolution of motion to quash a subpoena).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 (allowing three (3) additional days for service by mail). A party may respond to any objections within fourteen (14) days after being served. Such objections, and any responses to objections, shall be addressed to the Honorable Ronnie Abrams, United States District Judge. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Abrams.
FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. (See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1988); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237-38 (2d Cir. 1983)).
SO ORDERED.