In re: In the Matter of the Application for an Order Seekin Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. 1782
1:24-mc-00152
S.D.N.Y.Jun 5, 2024Background
- Carlos Lazo Reyes sought discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 via an ex parte application.
- Magistrate Judge Gary Stein recommended denying Lazo’s application without prejudice.
- Parties had 14 days to object specifically to the Report and Recommendation (R&R); no specific, timely objections were filed.
- Lazo later submitted a revised discovery application and filed a non-specific objection aimed at preserving rights, lacking substantive argument.
- Judge Woods reviewed the R&R for clear error and found none, then adopted the R&R in full.
- The original application was denied without prejudice; the amended application remains pending before the magistrate judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant Lazo’s § 1782 discovery application | Lazo: Sought discovery for foreign proceeding | Not detailed in opinion | Application denied without prejudice |
| Sufficiency of objections to magistrate's R&R | Lazo: Filed general objection to preserve rights | Not addressed | Objection insufficient; did not preserve claim |
| Standard of review for unobjected R&R | None presented | Not at issue | Clear error review applied; no clear error found |
| Adoption of Magistrate’s recommendation | Lazo: Sought review | Not addressed | R&R adopted in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Mario v. P&C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (general objections to an R&R are insufficient to preserve issues for review)
- Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (sets forth standard for reviewing unobjected R&Rs for clear error)