TaubmanSucks.com WillowBendSucks.com WillowBendMallSucks.com ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com

[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | The Book | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]

Act 86: Our Motion to Compel is Stricken

Although I'm not going to claim to understand the legal intricacies of the situation, the judge "struck" (as opposed to "denied") our motion to compel discovery because it was linked to a request to delay the portion of the trial dealing with the copyright claim, which he doesn't want to do. But rather than actually denying the motion, he's suggesting that we resubmit it as two separate motions: a motion to compel discovery, and a separate motion relating to rescheduling the trial. This is the order he issued today (June 13, 2002). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff, v. WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF, Defendants. CASE NO. 01-72987 HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF ORDER This matter is before the Court on 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. The Court reviewed the materials submitted. The current motion requests an order to "compel [Plaintiff] to respond promptly to the outstanding discovery, and to postpone the scheduled trial on [Plaintiff's copyright claim]," or in the alternative, an order "[imposing] sanctions under [FED. R. CIV. P.] 37(d)...." The Court is not inclined to hold two separate trials in this action; the Court finds that it is in the interest of judicial economy to have one trial. Because the request to postpone the trial on the copyright claim is a part of the motion to compel discovery, the Court would ordinarily deny Defendants' motion. Rather than deny Defendants' motion to compel discovery outright, however, the Court will allow Defendants to resubmit their motion to compel discovery without requesting that the trial on the copyright claim be postponed. Defendants may submit an additional motion requesting that the trial on the copyright claim be postponed, but this motion must be separate from the motion to compel discovery. This separate motion to postpone the trial date on the copyright claim must propose an appropriate trial date. . Therefore, 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 is HEREBY STRICKEN. Defendants may file a new motion to compel discovery, and a separate motion to postpone the trial on the copyright claim, as described above. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 13 JUN 2002 LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF CHIEF UNITED STATES DITRICT JUDGE View the Original Order (in a separate window)

©2002 Hank Mishkoff
All rights reserved.