With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 6(a), thus extending the deadline to November 15, 2004. Because plaintiff filed its objection on November 15, 2004, the objection is timely. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to strike the objection is DENIED. 2. Contrary to plaintiffs argument, Magistrate Judge Brazil did not err by requiring plaintiff to show, with respect to its claims against defendant, that “there is a real evidentiary basis for believing that the defendant has engaged in wrongful conduct that has caused real harm to the interests of the plaintiff.” (See Report at 7:25 — 8:2.) Indeed, the case upon which plaintiff primarily relies, as well as the case on which the Magistrate Judge primarily relies, both require such a showing. See Sony Music Entertainment Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 564-65 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>); Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185

A: holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1
B: holding plaintiff must make concrete showing of a prima facie claim of actionable harm denying motion to quash subpoena to undercover identity of doe defendants where inter alia plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to show it could establish prima facie claim
C: holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job
D: holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence
B.