Archive for the ‘Magistrate Judge David Nuffer’ category

Judge Dee Benson – Motion to Recuse denied

November 29, 2007

BRYAN L. TRAVIS, Plaintiff, vs. PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:05-CV-269

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86691

November 21, 2007

Plaintiff filed a motion to remove both Judge Dee Benson and Magistrate Judge David Nuffer from the case.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) provides that a federal judge must recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” In applying this standard, the Tenth Circuit looks to determine “whether a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” United States v. Burger, 964 F.2d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 1992). “The inquiry is limited to outward manifestations and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff’s evidence for bias consisted generally of several motions that either Judge Benson and/or Judge Nuffer had ruled in Defendant’s favor. However, Judge Benson holds that “an adverse ruling is not sufficient evidence of bias to satisfy the requirements for disqualification.”

“Mr. Travis provides no facts to support his allegations that Judge Benson and Judge Nuffer have a personal bias or prejudice against him. Rather, he makes cursory and unsubstantiated claims that Judge Benson and Judge Nuffer have worked against him in an effort to deny him justice.”

Motion to Recuse denied.


Magistrate Judge Nuffer – Motion to Compel Discovery granted in part

November 27, 2007

CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Utah corporation, Plaintiff, vs. ANDREW CHIANG, an individual, JUN YANG, an individual, LONNY BOWERS, an individual, WIDEBAND SOLUTIONS, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, and BIAMP SYSTEMS CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Defendants.

Case No: 2:07cv00037TC

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85617

November 20, 2007

Case assigned to Judge Tena Campbell – Opinion written by Magsitrate Judge Nuffer

The Plaintiff, ClearOne Communications, Inc., moved to compel discovery against Defendant Biamp Systems Corporation.  . In general, Biamp complained that many of the requests used the phrase “reflecting” or “relating,” which were omnibus terms that made the request overly broad.

Although Judge Nuffer counseled that “ClearOne should strive to make its requests more precise,” the use of terms such as “relating to,” “pertaining to,” or “concerning” does not necessarily make a request overly broad or unduly burdensome as long as these phrases modify a sufficiently specific type of information.

Motion to compel granted in part.

Judge Paul G. Cassell – Motion for Summary Judgment granted

June 19, 2007


Case No. 2:06-cv-313

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43033

June 13, 2007

Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 14, 2007. Plaintiff’s response was due on April 13, 2007. On April 20, 2007, Magistrate Judge Nuffer granted an extension to file the response with the new deadline being May 18, 2007. On May 31, 2007, no response had been filed and the court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to show cause as to why it should not grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to his non-opposition. The court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to respond within ten days.

Plaintiff’s counsel responded with a filing that stated (in whole):

“COMES NOW, Plaintiff, through Counsel, in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summery Judgment stating that there is no legal grounds upon which Defendant should be granted Summer Judgment. Plaintiff will more fully outline his opposition in Supporting Memorandum. Plaintiff would request that a hearing be set to provide Oral Argument in this matter.”

Plaintiff’s counsel filed no supporting memorandum with the above document.

In dismissing the case, Judge Cassell stated: “It is not the job of the court or of the defendants to make the plaintiff’s arguments for him, and the court deems arguments not addressed in an opposition to be abandoned.”

Case dismissed.

Magistrate David O. Nuffer – “Making a Magistrate Happy”

March 14, 2007

I know this was put together several years ago, but I would imagine Magistrate Judge Nuffer would still endorse many of these same recommendations he gave back in 2002:

Don’t mess with timestamps

March 14, 2007

Several federal courthouses have dropboxes outside the courthouse that allow after-hour filings.  The dropbox has both a weather-protected timestamp and a separate slot to slip in the document.

In the District of Utah, if a document is time-stamped, and immediately placed in the dropbox, the document is considered timely filed, even if its after regular courthouse hours.

What one should NOT do, is time-stamp the document and put it in the dropbox several days later, attempting to pass off the document as having been “filed” on the date reflected by the time-stamp.

See the following articles:,1249,660202375,00.html

Judge Nuffer also had the following comments regarding this issue on his March 5 blog entry:

Husband held; wife released in bank robbery case

February 2, 2007

Young newlyweds Joshua Rich (25 years old) and Kylee Rich (20 years old) were recently arrested for armed bank robbery.  The United States Attorney’s Office has charged both of them for a January 26, 2007 robbery, while Joshua has also been charged with armed bank robberies that occurred on November 10 and 27, 2006.

Magistrate Judge Nuffer ruled that Joshua be held in jail until his case is resolved.  Kylee was released to the custody of her parents pending trial.

The robberies were apparently motivated to support drug habits.

Article – Electronic Filing in Federal Court

January 31, 2007

I wrote an article regarding electronic filing in federal court that was just published in the Jan./Feb. issue of the Utah Bar Journal.  If you’re interested in reading the article, click on the link below.

Electronic Filing in Federal Court – Where are We Now?