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

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


Act 81: We Move to Compel Discovery

As you'll see from the motion below, my attorney has tried to get Taubman's attorneys to be more responsive to our discovery requests, but they don't seem to be inclined to cooperate. And so on May 24, 2002, we asked the judge to intervene and compel Taubman to do what they're supposed to do.


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


Next: Memorandum

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

©2002 Hank Mishkoff
All rights reserved.