Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01112-REB-KLM
03-23-2015
THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, and DR. DIEGO GARCIA CARRION, the Attorney General of The Republic of Ecuador, Petitioners, v. STRATUS CONSULTING, INC., and Related Individuals, for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, Respondent.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Order to Show Cause [#45] issued by the Court on March 9, 2015. In this matter, Petitioners sought leave to serve subpoenas on Respondent for the production of documents and deposition testimony for use in a foreign proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 and Rules 26, 30, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The request was granted in part by the District Judge on May 29, 2013. Order [#23]. A Scheduling Order [#28] regarding depositions and the production of documents was subsequently entered by the undersigned. All deadlines (including extensions) passed in August 2013, and there has been no activity in this case in approximately one-and-a-half years. On March 9, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why the undersigned should not recommend that this case be closed. The parties were ordered to respond, in writing, to the Order to Show Cause on or before March 23, 2015. They were warned that failure to respond and show good cause to keep this matter open would result in the Court issuing a recommendation that this action be closed. On March 20, 2015, and on March 23, 2015, the parties filed Responses [#46, #47] jointly agreeing that this case should be closed. Accordingly,
"[#45]" is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the Court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). This convention is used throughout this Recommendation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause [#45] is DISCHARGED.
IT IS RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that this case be CLOSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service of this Recommendation to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. A party's failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the Recommendation by the District Judge, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985), and also waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. Makin v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 1999); Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir. 1996). A party's objections to this Recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the District Court or for appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Dated: March 23, 2015
BY THE COURT:
/s/
Kristen L. Mix
United States Magistrate Judge