|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN
DIVISION
| THE TAUBMAN COMPANY |
| LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, |
| |
| Plaintiff, | |
| | Civil Action No. 01-72987 |
| v. |
| | District Judge Zatkoff |
| WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF, |
 |
Magistrate Judge Komives |
| |
| Defendants. | |
MOTION TO COMPEL PROMPT
DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF
AND DEFERRING TRIAL
ON THE COPYRIGHT CLAIM ONLY,
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
TO STRIKE COPYRIGHT CLAIM
OR UPHOLD FAIR USE DEFENSE
Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the reasons set forth in the
accompanying memorandum of law, defendants move the Court to compel plaintiff to provide complete
answers to their written discovery pertaining to Count IV (the copyright claim), to extend the
cut-off date for defendants to take depositions to follow up plaintiff's responses to such
discovery, to extend the time for dispositive motions on the copyright claims, and to sever the
trial on the copyright claim from the trial on the trademark claims. In the alternative, the Court
is requested to dismiss this action as a sanction for plaintiff's having presented the accompanying
completely evasive and incomplete responses to interrogatories and requests to produce that amount
to a failure to answer the discovery requests.
On Friday, March 17, the date he received plaintiff's written discovery responses, undersigned
counsel for defendants, Paul Alan Levy, telephoned counsel for plaintiff, Julie Greenberg, to
request her concurrence in a motion to dismiss for failure to make discovery. On May 20, Ms.
Greenberg called back with her co-counsel, Doug Sprinkle, who peremptorily refused to concur and
hung up the telephone before Mr. Levy could say any more. Mr. Levy immediately called back to say
that, as alternate relief, Mishkoff might seek an order barring the introduction of evidence, and
left a voicemail message to that effect. Mr. Sprinkle called back and left a voicemail message
asking for the basis for that relief. Mr. Levy returned that call on the afternoon of May 20,
explained the basis for the relief by voicemail, and invited Mr. Sprinkle to call to discuss the
matter.
When Mr. Sprinkle did not return that telephone call, Mr. Levy sent Taubman's counsel a letter
dated May 22, 2002, outlining his concerns and suggesting that counsel speak to try to resolve their
differences. Later that day, counsel held a telephone conference, following which Taubman sent Mr.
Levy a one-page document and slightly amended its response to three interrogatories. Mr. Levy
explained why this response was inadequate in a further letter. In sum, counsel have been unable to
resolve their differences, and it appears that this Court's intervention is required.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Harvey (P25478)
Suite 3060
Penobscot Building
645 Griswold
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(313) 963-3570
Paul Alan Levy (DC Bar 946400)
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
Attorneys for Defendants
May 24, 2002
|
