Massoli v. Regan Media, et al

Filing 88

RESPONSE to Motion re 87 First MOTION for Extension of Time Within Which to Respond to Defendants/Counterclaimant Regan Media's Second Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions filed by Regan Media, Judith Regan, Regan Media, Judith Regan. (Blackhurst, Dennis)

Download PDF
Massoli v. Regan Media, et al Doc. 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP Collier Center 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 Telephone: (602) 257-5200 Facsimile: (602) 257-5299 David J. Bodney (006065) Dennis K. Blackhurst (021678) Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaimants Regan Media, Inc. and Judith Regan UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JENNA MASSOLI p/k/a JENNA JAMESON, Plaintiff, vs. " EGAN MEDIA," JUDITH R and REGAN, an individual, Defendants. REGAN MEDIA, INC., a New York corporation, and JUDITH REGAN, an individual, Defendants/Counterclaimants, vs. JENNA MASSOLI p/k/a JENNA JAMESON, an individual, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, and JAY GRDINA, an individual, and DOLCE AMORE, INC., a Colorado corporation, Counterdefendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 05-0854 PHX EHC REGAN MEDIA' RESPONSE IN S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/ COUNTERDEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Assigned to the Honorable Earl H. Carroll) Case 2:05-cv-00854-EHC Document 88 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 1 of 5 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff/Counterdefendants' request for additional time to respond to Regan Media' Second Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions should be denied. s Defendant/Counterclaimant Regan Media, Inc. (" egan Media" served its First Request R ) for Production of Documents on Counterdefendants Jenna Massoli p/k/a Jenna Jameson, Jay Grdina and Dolce Amore, Inc. (collectively, " ounterdefendants" on November 4, C ) 2005, over four months ago. Counterdefendants ignored Regan Media' document s requests until Regan Media filed its first Motion to Compel on January 5, 2006. In response to that motion, Counterdefendants claimed that they had been too busy to respond and promised to produce the requested documents by February 7, 2006. On February 9, after several calls from Regan Media' counsel, Counterdefendants produced s only a handful of documents, ignored numerous requests and asserted improper objections to other relevant document requests. This deficient production prompted Regan Media' s Second Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions filed on February 17, 2006. As part of Regan Media' Second Motion to Compel, Regan Media was obliged to request the s amendment of the Court'Rule 16 Scheduling Order to accommodate Counterdefendants' s delinquent document production. Now it appears that Counterdefendants have been ignoring not just Regan Media, but their own counsel as well. Both sets of lawyers who have entered appearances on behalf of Counterdefendants in this matter have moved to withdraw, apparently because Counterdefendants refuse to cooperate with their own counsel in the very litigation they initiated. [See March 7, 2006 Attorney' Certificate of Compliance with s 2 Case 2:05-cv-00854-EHC Document 88 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LRCiv 83.3(b)(2)(A) filed by Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA at 2-3; March 7, 2006 Attorney' Certificate of Compliance with LRCiv 83.3(b)(2)(A) filed by Lipsitz, Green, s Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria, LLP at 2.] Now, after ignoring Regan Media' document requests and their own s lawyers' inquiries for months, Counterdefendants request additional time to respond to Regan Media' Second Motion to Compel. Their Motion -- filed on the very last day s possible -- should be denied. Counterdefendants' refusal to fulfill their obligations in this litigation has now prompted two motions to compel, necessitated the postponement of depositions, and thrown off the Court' Scheduling Order. The fact that their attorneys s have moved to withdraw verifies what Regan Media could only conjecture in the Second Motion to Compel -- that Counterdefendants made no effort to produce the materials identified in Regan Media'First Request for Production. Regan Media' Second Motion s s to Compel and Request for Sanctions should be granted in its entirety, and Counterdefendants should be ordered to appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their misconduct. ... ... ... 3 Case 2:05-cv-00854-EHC Document 88 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 Case 2:05-cv-00854-EHC Document 88 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 4 of 5 Respectfully submitted this 16th day of March, 2006. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP By: /s/ David J. Bodney David J. Bodney Dennis K. Blackhurst Collier Center 201 East Washington Street Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 Attorneys for Defendants/ Counterclaimants Regan Media, Inc. and Judith Regan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 16th day of March, 2006, I caused the attached document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk'Office using the CM/ECF System s for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electric Filing to the following CM/ECF Registrants: James L. Blair Roger William Hall Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA Phelps Dodge Tower One North Central, Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant and Third-Party Counterdefendant I hereby certify that on the 16th day of March, 2006, I served the attached document by mail on the following, who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF System: Bernard M. Brodsky Jeffrey F. Reina Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria, LLP 42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 300 Buffalo, NY 14202-3857 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant and Third-Party Counterdefendant /s/ Beth Gibson Beth Gibson 493986 5 Case 2:05-cv-00854-EHC Document 88 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 5 of 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?