BLST Northstar, LLC et al v. Atalaya Capital Management LP et al

Filing 36

ORDER for 33 Report and Recommendations,,, 1 Motion to Compel, filed by BLST Northstar, LLC, BLST Receivables & Servicing, LLC. No objection to the R&R was submitted within the fourteen-day window. The Court has reviewed the R&R for cl ear error and finds none. See Braunstein v. Barber, No. 06 Civ. 5978 (CS) (GAY), 2009 WL 1542707, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009) (explaining that a "district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections have been made, as long as no clear error is apparent from the face of the record."). The Court, therefore, accepts and adopts the R&R in its entirety. For the reasons articulated in the R&R, the motion to compel is granted in and denied in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/27/2024) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
:
BLST NORTHSTAR, LLC, and BLST
:
RECEIVABLES & SERVICING, LLC,
:
Petitioners, :
:
-v :
ATALAYA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, and BB :
:
ALLIUM LLC,
:
Respondents. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------------- X
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 3/27/2024

1:24-mc-66-GHW-RWL
ORDER

On March 12, 2024, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court:
grant[] Bluestem’s motion to compel except that Atalaya need not produce documents
that both reveal Atalaya’s proprietary financial modeling and do not contain any of the
information Bluestem alleges was improperly disclosed and used, provided that Atalaya
first provides a sworn statement confirming that the materials being withheld meet those
requirements. Further, the requisite attestation should be required to be provided within
seven days of adoption of this Report and Recommendation. If Atalaya fails to provide
the requisite attestation, then all remaining documents at issue should be produced.
Dkt. No. 33 at 19. Judge Lehrburger reached this conclusion having carefully “considered the
parties’ arguments and found them to be either moot or without merit.” Id.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “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)(1). Parties may raise specific, written objections to the report and
recommendation within fourteen days of receiving a copy of the report. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). The Court reviews for clear error those parts of the report and recommendation to which
no party has timely objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811
(S.D.N.Y. 2008).

No objection to the R&R was submitted within the fourteen-day window. The Court has
reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. See Braunstein v. Barber, No. 06 Civ. 5978 (CS)
(GAY), 2009 WL 1542707, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009) (explaining that a “district court may adopt
those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections have been made, as long as
no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.”). The Court, therefore, accepts and adopts
the R&R in its entirety. For the reasons articulated in the R&R, the motion to compel is granted in
and denied in part.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2024
New York, New York

__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

2