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

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

Act 93: Our Motion to Defer is Denied

On July 15, 2002, Judge Zatkoff issued an order denying our request to "defer" (postpone) the copyright portion of the trial. This was especially surprising because we had not asked the judge to defer the copyright portion of the trial, we had asked him to defer the entire trial! However, the misunderstanding is inconsequential, because he based his decision on his belief that it's premature to defer the trial until we know how Judge Komives is going to rule on our motion to compel discovery. (The hearing on that motion is set for July 25, 2002.) If Judge Komives rules against us, there may be no need to defer the trial – and if he rules in our favor, we can revisit the deferment issue at that time. 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 Defer Trial to Permit Further Discovery on the Copyright Claim. The Court reviewed the materials submitted. Plaintiff originally filed a three-count complaint against Defendants, all alleging trademark infringement. After discovery ended, Plaintiff made a motion to amend its complaint to add a fourth count alleging copyright infringement. The Court granted that motion on April 4, 2002, and allowed the parties to have roughly eight weeks for discovery. The Court also set trial on all four counts for the trailing docket in October 2002. Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery, alleging that Plaintiff's answers to Defendants' discovery requests regarding the copyright claim were "evasive and incomplete." That motion has been referred to Magistrate Komives. Defendants argue that assuming Magistrate Komives grants their motion to compel, Defendants will not be able to depose witnesses regarding such information until September 2002. Therefore, Defendants request that the Court postpone the trial on the copyright claim until February 2003. If the Court were to grant Defendants' motion, it would double the cost both parties would incur, costs such as transporting witnesses and lawyers from out of state, and attorneys' fees. Further, it would mean that two separate juries would need to be called. The Court is not inclined to duplicate such costs, especially in light of the fact that any potential discovery problems Defendants may face is contingent upon Magistrate Komives granting their motion, which he may not do. Therefore. the Court shall not grant Defendants' motion at this time. Defendants' Motion to Defer Trial to Permit Further Discovery on the Copyright Claim is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 15 JUL 2002 LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF CHIEF UNITED STATES DITRICT JUDGE View the Original Order (in a separate window)

©2002 Hank Mishkoff
All rights reserved.