2091695, at *1 (D.Ariz. July 25, 2006); Mitra v. State Bank of India, T.S., No. 03-Civ. 6331(DAB) 2005 WL 2143144 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2005); Qwest Commc’n Int’l, Inc. v. WorldQuest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D.Colo.2003); Whitfield v. Hochsheid, No. C-1-02-218, 2002 WL 1560267, at *1 (S.D.Ohio July 2, 2002); Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 614 (D.Ariz. 2001). Other courts have applied a more stringent standard that resembles the test for a preliminary injunction, which is known as the Notaro test. See Notaro v. Koch, 95 F.R.D. 403 (S.D.N.Y.1982). Yet a third approach, combines the “good cause” test with that of Notaro. Entm’t Tech. Corp. v. Walt Disney Imagineering, Inc., No. Civ.A. 03-3546, 2003 WL 22519440 at *4 (E.D.Pa. Oct.2, 2003) (<HOLDING>). Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
holding that no single factor controls and that all factors must be weighed in light of fundamental fairness and the circumstances of the case recognizing further that the court need not  and could not  resolve all of the circumstances in which such factors would entitle an employer to judgment as a matter of law holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances  both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide  whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession holding that a district court should decide a motion for expedited discovery on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances unless the circumstances are such that the notaro factors apply holding that once the defendant is before the court the court will not inquire into the circumstances surrounding his presence there