In re Application of Core Compass Ltd.
In re Application of Core Compass Ltd.
2023 WL 7117956 (S.D. Cal. 2023)
October 27, 2023
Sabraw, Dana M., United States District Judge
Summary
The Ninth Circuit held that an application to conduct discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is a case-dispositive matter. The Court reviewed the Application and the Report and Recommendation and adopted it in every respect, granting the application to conduct discovery. Applicant Core Compass Limited was thus able to subpoena EDYL Management LLC and Paul Lyden to produce documents and testify at deposition. Notice of the filed report and recommendation was received on October 19, 2023.
Additional Decisions
IN RE APPLICATION OF CORE COMPASS LIMITED, Applicant,
v.
for the Issuance of a Subpoena for the Taking of a Deposition and the Production of Documents Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to EDYL Management LLC and Paul Lyden for Use in Foreign Proceedings
v.
for the Issuance of a Subpoena for the Taking of a Deposition and the Production of Documents Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to EDYL Management LLC and Paul Lyden for Use in Foreign Proceedings
Case No.: 23-mc-735
United States District Court, S.D. California
Filed October 27, 2023
Sabraw, Dana M., United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING APPLICATION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY
*1 Pending before the Court is Applicant Core Compass Limited's application for issuance of a subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. On June 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal filed a Report and Recommendation for an order granting the application.[1] (ECF No. 3.)[2] Judge Skomal set July 17, 2023, as the deadline for any party to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (R. & R. at 9.) No party filed an objection.
“[A] magistrate judge may not issue binding rulings on case-dispositive matters without the parties' consent.” CPC Patent Techs. Pty Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 34 F.4th 801, 807 (9th Cir. 2022). The Ninth Circuit has held that an application to conduct discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is a case-dispositive matter. Id. at 807–08. Thus, the magistrate judge may issue a report and recommendation on such a motion subject to the de novo review of the district judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
“A district judge ‘may accept, reject, or modify’ ” a magistrate judge's recommended disposition. In re Oh, No. 22-mc-1649-DMS-DDL, 2023 WL 4047588, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2023) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). “The district judge must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made.’ ” Campuzano v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV-721-WQH-WVG, 2021 WL 3848164 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). “However, the district judge need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation” to which no party objects. Lisa D. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-00695-DMS-MSB, 2023 WL 5836983 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2023).
The Court has reviewed the Application and the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and ADOPTS it in every respect. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court GRANTS the application to conduct discovery. Applicant may subpoena EDYL Management LLC (EDYL) and Paul Lyden to produce documents and testify at deposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.