Bobcar Media, LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al.

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 64 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs claim for utility patent infringement remains; all others are dismissed. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by February 14, 2024. Defendants shall file an Answer to the operative Complaint by February 28, 2024. The parties shall appear for a telephonic initial pretrial conference on March 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. No later than March 13, 2024 at 12 p.m., the parties shall jointly submit to the court ( via [e-mail]) a proposed case management plan and list of appearances, along with their contact information. The Clerk is directed to close the open motions at ECF Nos. 31, 52, and 74. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 2/14/2024., Telephonic Initial Conference set for 3/15/2024 at 10:00 AM before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.) (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 2/07/2024) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------- X
BOB CAR MEDIA, LLC,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff,
-against-

21 Civ. 5685 (AKH) (OTW)

DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------- X

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:
On March 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued a Report and
Recommendation, which recommends that this Comi grant in part and deny Defendants' motion
to dismiss. See ECF No. 64. Plaintiff and Defendants timely filed objections, see ECF No. 65,
67, and timely responded to these objections, see ECF No. 71 and 72. Plaintiff also filed a reply
to Defendants' response to Plaintiffs objections, see ECF No. 73, which prompted Defendants to
file a motion to strike the reply as unauthorized by the Federal and Local Rules.
I. Adopting Magistrate Judge Wang's Report and Recommendation

In reviewing a Repmi and Recommendation, a district court "may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge."
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A district comi "must determine de nova any paii of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). However, the
court need only apply clear error review when a paiiy "makes only conclusory or general
objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments." Bunbury v. Commissioner ofSoc. Sec.,
18-cv-10722, 2019 WL 6830204, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2019).
1

Although both sides' objections appear to "simply reiterate[]" the arguments
initially made, I note nonetheless that even under de nova review, Magistrate Judge Wang's
Report and Recommendation is well-reasoned and grounded firmly in the record. Accordingly, I
adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
II. Defendants' Motion to Strike ECF No. 73

Defendants object to Plaintiffs filing of a reply brief in further support of its
objections as procedurally improper. See ECF No. 73. The Federal and Local Rules governing
objections to a magistrate judge's repmt and recommendation do not provide a reply oppmtunity
regarding such objections. Nor did Plaintiffs seek leave from this court. The Court neve1theless
reviewed Plaintiffs reply brief. This decision takes account of all Plaintiffs arguments in all its
briefs. Defendants' motion is denied.
CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs claim for utility patent infringement remains; all others are dismissed.
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by February 14, 2024. Defendants shall file an Answer
to the operative Complaint by February 28, 2024. The parties shall appear for a telephonic initial
pretrial conference on March 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. No later than March 13, 2024 at 12 p.m.,
the parties shall jointly submit to the court (via [e-mail])
a proposed case management plan and list of appearances, along with their contact information.
The Clerk is directed to close the open motions at ECF Nos. 31, 52, and 74.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 7, 2024
New York, New York
United States District Judge
2