This situation is governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59 ( a ), which deals with "Matters Before a Magistrate Judge". A Magistrate Judge is a non-Article III judge who the Article III judge presiding over the case can appoint to handle certain responsibilities, subject to the oversight of the Article III judge. In this instance, On October 29, Judge Nachmanoff, the Article III district court judge presiding over the case, appointed Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick to address in the first instance certain discovery issues. As provided in FrCrimPro 59 (a ), "a party may serve and file objections to [ a non-dispositive order issued by a Magistrate Judge ] within 14 days after being served with a copy of a written order or after the oral order is stated on the record, or at some other time the court sets. The district judge must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is contrary to law or clearly erroneous."
I'm not sure whose "due process" rights you think were abused by Judge Nachmanoff following the applicable Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, particularly since Nachmanoff implemented a highly expedited schedule for addressing objections to the Magistrate Judge's order. The government had asked for the stay to run through November 24 but the judge only gave them until the 19th.
= new reply since forum marked as read