If you only occasionally practice in the district, you might be unaware of an old standing order on the procedure for objecting to R&R's. The unimaginatively titled "October 9, 2013 Standing Order for Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72" contains requirements for filing objections that do not appear in either the local rules or FRCP 72.
Most of these requirements are simple logistical matters -- the length and timing of briefs, requiring courtesy copies, etc. A recent ruling from Judge Connolly, however, shows the imprtance of following these requirements precisely.
The defendant in In Personal Audio LLC v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 17-1751-CFC-CJB, D.I. 715 (D. Del. Jan 21, 2022) had lost a Daubert motion before Magistrate Burke and timely (within 14 days) filed objections. Unfortunately, they neglected to send courtesy copies "of all filings (e.g., motions, briefs, appendices) associated with the matter to which the R&R, ruling or order relates" within 5 days as required by the Standing Order on Objections. Thus, Judge Connolly quickly issued an Order overruling the objections, stating simply:
In making its objections, Defendant failed to provide the Court with copies of the filings associated with the matter to which the Order relates and thus failed to comply with this Court's Standing Order . . . .
There's no way to know if the Defendant has any real hope of prevailing on its objections (reminder to self: write blog post on success rates for objections to R&Rs), but it's a good reminder to check for standing orders.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
