claims, or as statements made in connection with commercial services being offered by defendant, which is plaintiffs theory in support of its claims sounding in trademark. 4. Alternatively, because defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena could be characterized as a non-dispositive motion, the Court has also reviewed the Report as a non-dispositive order under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Although resolution of the motion will conclude the miscellaneous proceeding in this district, plaintiffs complaint against defendant will remain pending before the District of Massachusetts, irrespective of resolution of the miscellaneous proceeding. See, e.g., Channelmark Corp. v. Destination Products Int’l, Inc., 2000 WL 968818 (N.D.Ill.2000) (<HOLDING>). Having reviewed the file, the Court concludes
holding that the term timely should be read in conjunction with 45c2b that requires a party subject to a subpoena to object to a subpoena duces tecum within 14 days of service of the subpoena holding that the defendants consent to search was voluntary although he had been served with a subpoena holding that a denial of an order to quash a subpoena not directed to a movant was a final order if the movant had no further opportunity to challenge the subpoena holding motion to enforce subpoena filed in district court where plaintiff served subpoena was nondispositive because resolution thereof would not dispose of complaint pending in other district court holding that taxpayer who is the target but not the recipient of an administrative subpoena pursuant to 26 usc  7602 may challenge the subpoena