Pro Video Instruments, LLC v. Tower Products, Inc., No. 1:2019mc00052 - Document 14 (N.D.N.Y 2020)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the motion to enforce the subpoena (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED as moot and this action is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk shall close this action. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on June 15, 2020. (sas)

Download PDF
Pro Video Instruments, LLC v. Tower Products, Inc. Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO VIDEO INSTRUMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, -against- 1:19-MC-0052 (LEK/DJS) TOWER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Pro Video Instruments filed this action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 45 to enforce a subpoena that it had served on Defendant in a separate lawsuit Plaintiff had filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Florida Action”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Motion”). Now before the Court is a report-recommendation filed by the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court dismiss this suit as moot because the Florida Action has been dismissed, obviating the need for enforcement of the subpoena. Dkt. No. 13 (“Report-Recommendation”). For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If objections are timely filed, a court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). However, if no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a Dockets.Justia.com mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306–07 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal . . . .”). “A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” § 636(b). III. DISCUSSION Neither party filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. See Docket. Consequently, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the motion to enforce the subpoena (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED as moot and this action is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk shall close this action; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 15, 2020 Albany, New York 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.