Malibu Media, LLC v. Fantalis et al
Filing
109
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty: Motion Hearing held on 11/5/2012, granting in part and denying in part 86 Motion to Compel, denying 94 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, granting 99 Motion for Extension of Time, and granting 101 Motion to Stay. For further information, please see minutes. FTR: Courtroom A-501. (kmtcd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL E. HEGARTY
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00886-MEH
Courtroom Deputy: Nick Richards
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC
Date: November 5, 2012
FTR – Courtroom A501
Jason Aaron Kotzker
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFF FANTALIS, and
BRUCE DUNN,
Pro Se
Defendants.
COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER
MOTION HEARING
Court in session: 2:08 p.m.
Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. Mary Anne Fantalis is also present with Defendant.
Opening statements by the Court.
Argument and discussion regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to
Defendant’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 99, filed November 2, 2012], Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay
Discovery Pending the Resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Counterclaim [Doc. No. 101, filed November 4, 2012], Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Motion
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Answers to Discovery Requests
and Request for Sanctions [Doc. No. 86, filed October 11, 2012], and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Modify Schedule [Doc. No. 94, filed October 29, 2012].
ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time [99] is GRANTED as stated on the
record.
ORDERED: Plaintiff shall file a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss certain claims as stated on the
record on or before November 9, 2012.
ORDERED: Defendant may respond to Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Dismiss and pending
Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses on or before December 31, 2012. Plaintiff’s
reply will be bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
ORDERED: Plaintiff shall send a justification for designation of confidential documents to
Defendant by the end of business on November 7, 2012.
The Court warns Plaintiff that if deadlines set are not met, the case may be dismissed for a failure
to prosecute.
ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay [101] is GRANTED as stated on the record.
ORDERED: Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Motion Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) [86] is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated on the record.
Plaintiff’s objections to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 12,
17, 18, 31, 43, 50 subpart h, 51, and 58, Request for Admissions Nos. 67, 79, 99,
100, 101, 108, 111, 114, 117, 119, 142, 143, 186, 197, 200, and 212 are overruled.
Plaintiff will begin production of documents on or before November 9, 2012 and
production will be completed on or before November 26, 2012.
As to Request for Production No. 1, Plaintiff must produce any documents
describing flaws of deficiencies the company uses to identify IP addresses.
As to Request for Production No. 5, any documents that address the creation of the
“File” at issue that are not privileged must be produced.
Request for Production Nos. 6 and 7 are collapsed into one request, and Plaintiff
must produce communications between August 2011 and the present.
As to Request for Production No. 17, Plaintiff is required to produce any
agreements between Plaintiff, IPP Ltd., Tobias Fieser, Brigham Field a/k/a Brig
Field, and Colette Leah a/k/a Coco Leah.
Documents responding to Request for Production No. 21 will be produced to the
court for an in-camera review.
Request for Production 51 is overruled and Plaintiff shall provide the total amount
received to date in settlement with the thirty Doe Defendants named in the
original, related action. The Court warns that this information is to remain
confidential and not to be disclosed by Defendant.
Again, Plaintiff will begin production of documents on or before November 9,
2012 and will be completed on or before November 26, 2012.
Plaintiff’s objections to Requests for Production Nos. 3, 4, 8, 22, 24, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 with the exception of subpart h,
54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, and 64, Request for Admissions Nos. 46, 47, 48, 68, 69,
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112,
113, 118, 177, 178, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 198,
201, 213, 214, and 215, and Interrogatory Nos. 8 (in part), 9, and 10 are sustained
and require no further supplementation. Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatory No. 8
the same as required for Request for Production No. 17.
Request for Production Nos. 19, 20, 25, 26, 39, 42, 62 and Request for Admission
No. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 81, 82 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 199, 203, and 204 are
denied without prejudice at this time.
ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Schedule [94] is DENIED without prejudice as
stated on the record.
The Court reminds the parties that ex parte communications are improper and will not be allowed
going forward.
Court in recess: 5:38 p.m. (Hearing concluded)
Total time in court: 3:30
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?