UNITED STATES
v.
REAL PROP. KNOWN AS 6469 POLO POINTE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the claimant's appeal of the magistrate judge's order compelling production of tax records.
The magistrate judge ordered the claimant to produce tax records. The claimant appealed, arguing the motion to compel was untimely and the records wer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Relevance In Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
April 10, 2006. The claimant now seeks reconsideration of this order, arguing that the plaintiffs original motion to compel was untimely and that the tax records are not relevant to these proceedings.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the court may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to the magistrate judge for final disposition where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” In his April 5, 2006 order, Judge Hopkins specifically dealt with the issues currently raised by the claimant and concluded that the plaintiffs motion to compel was timely and that the tax records are relevant to these proceedings. Judge Hopkins’s conclusions are adequately supported by the record in this case and the relevant case law. Therefore, the court is unable to conclude that Judge Hopkins’s order compelling the production of the claimant’s tax records is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1.The claimant’s appeal of magistrate judge’s omnibus order of April 5, 2006 and request for stay [DE # 44-1, 44-2] is DENIED.
2 The claimant is directed to provide the tax records no later than FIVE (5) DAYS from the date of entry of this order. 3. The claimant’s request for hearing on the instant motion [DE #45] is DENIED.