Lindell v. Negroponte
This text of Lindell v. Negroponte (Lindell v. Negroponte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MICHAEL J. LINDELL, et al., Plaintiffs v. Case No. 1:23-mc-78 (ACR-MAU) [D. Minn. Case No. 22-cv-98-WMW-JFD] OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, Defendant.
ORDER (September 16, 2024) My Pillow, Inc. and Michael Lindell, Defendants in the underlying action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, moved to compel a third party, John Negroponte, to comply with a deposition subpoena. Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 1. This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya for determination. Minute Order on Dec 18, 2023. On August 22, 2024, Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya issued a [10] Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ [1] Motion to Compel. Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya advised the parties that pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.3(b), “any party who objects to the Report and Recommendation must file a written objection with the Clerk of Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of this Report and Recommendation.” Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 10 at 13. Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya further advised the parties that “[f]ailure to file timely objections to the findings and recommendations set forth in this Report may waive that party’s right of appeal from an order of the District Court that adopts such findings and recommendation.” Id. (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)). As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed by either party, and the deadline for filing any such objections has now passed. Accordingly, it is, this 16th day of September, 2024, hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya’s [10] Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ [1] Motion to Compel is DENIED. SO ORDERED.
ANA C. REYES United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lindell v. Negroponte, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindell-v-negroponte-dcd-2024.