Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D

Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D

. “Exact and Approximate Arithmetic in an Amazonian Indigene Group.” Science 306, no. 5695 (October 15, 2004): 499-503. doi:10.1126/science.1102085. Potter, Michael. Set Theory and Its Philosophy: A Critical Introduction. Clarendon Press, 2004. Chapter 9 Chaitin, Gregory J. Thinking About Gédel And Tur

l discovery. In evaluating jurisdic- tional motions, district courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding whether to order discovery. See, eg., APWU v. Potter, 348 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003) (noting a court may “devis[e] the procedures [to] ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction”); Marine Midland B

retion in deciding whether to order jurisdictional discovery before resolving motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See, e.g, APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003). This Court finds that such discovery would be helpful in assessing whether any of Rabita Trust’s activities were di

t out to determine whether there is any actual relationship between “hard-core pornography” and violence against women. It began by disputing Justice Potter Stewart’s famous line that although he could never “define” hard core pornography, “I know it when I see it.” That may have been true before radical