SQUARE RING INC v. TROYANOVSKY

Filing 66

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 51 Plaintiff Square Ring, Inc.'s Motion to Compel; granting 64 Plaintiff Square Ring, Inc.'s First Motion for Enlargement of Time to Complete Discovery. The discovery deadline, expert disclosure deadlines and dispositive motion deadlines are extended thirty (30) days as detailed in the order. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 08/08/18. (grj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SQUARE RING, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-641-MCR-GRJ

EDUARD TROYANOVSKY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
Pending before the Court are ECF No. 51, Plaintiff Square Ring,
Inc.’s Motion to Compel; ECF No. 52, Plaintiff Square Ring, Inc.’s
Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion to Compel; and ECF No. 64,
Plaintiff Square Ring, Inc.’s First Motion for Enlargement of Time.
Defendant filed responses in opposition to these motions, see ECF Nos.
58, 65, and the motions are therefore ripe for review.
A.

Plaintiff Square Ring, Inc.’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff requests the Court to compel Defendant to produce

documents responsive to Request Nos. 5, 8, 10, 14, and 18 in its First Set
of Requests for Production of Documents. ECF No. 51. Defendant
requests that the Court deny the motion to compel or, if the Court grants

the motion, to designate Defendant’s financial information as Proprietary
Discovery Material pursuant to the parties’ protective order. ECF No. 58.
The Court addresses each request for product at issue in turn below.
Request No. 5
In Request No. 5 Plaintiff seeks “all documents and communications
related to the Acquaintance [Yuriy Batischev].” Plaintiff says it needs these
documents because Defendant maintains that the Acquaintance forged
Defendant’s signature on the promotional agreement and emailed the
signed promotional agreement to Salita. ECF No. 52 at 5–6. Defendant
objects to this request because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome,
particularly because Plaintiff does not limit the request to communications
with some connection or relevance to the case. ECF No. 58 at 6–8.
Because documents and communications related to the
Acquaintance are relevant to Defendant’s position that the Acquaintance
signed the promotional agreement, Plaintiff’s motion to compel with regard
to Request No. 5 is due to be granted. Defendant, however, must produce
only those documents and communications involving the Acquaintance that
discuss or relate to the promotional agreement for the time period from six
months before the signing of the promotional agreement to six months
after the signing of the promotional agreement.
-2-

Request No. 8
In Request No. 8 Plaintiff seeks “production of all documents and
communications related to Jones, the President of SRI, including, without
limitation, any photographs containing both Troyanovsky and Jones.”
Plaintiff wants these documents and communications because Defendant
maintains that he did not know that Jones was his promoter. ECF No. 52 at
6. Defendant objects to this request because Defendant already produced
communications between Defendant and Jones when Defendant produced
documents related to Square Ring. Because Jones was the President of
Square Ring any communications between him and Defendant would have
been included in the prior production. Defendant also objects arguing that
compliance with the request would require him to conduct an internet
search for pictures of Defendant and Jones. ECF No. 58 at 8–9.
With regard to the request for documents and communications
related to Jones, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is due to be denied because
Defendant represents that all communications between Defendant and
Jones already have been produced in response to the request for
documents related to Square Ring. But with regard to any photographs
depicting Defendant and Jones together, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be
granted. Defendant is advised that he is not required to conduct an internet
-3-

search for pictures of Defendant and Jones. Rather, Defendant only is
required to produce pictures of Defendant and Jones (if they exist) that are
in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.
Request No. 10
In Request No. 10 Plaintiff seeks “production of all documents and
communications related to [World of Boxing], Defendant’s current
promoter.” Plaintiff requests these documents, including documents related
to Defendant’s purses, because Plaintiff says the information is necessary
for Plaintiff’s expert to determine Plaintiff’s damages. ECF No. 52 at 6–14.
Defendant objects arguing that financial arrangements and development of
his career through World of Boxing are unrelated to the issues in this case
and that Defendant’s earnings are unrelated to proving Plaintiff’s lost
profits.
Regardless of the ultimate success or reliability of Plaintiff’s damage
theory or the admissibility of any expert opinion on damages (which relies
upon Defendant’s purse awards) the Court concludes that in discovery
Plaintiff is entitled to the requested documents so that its expert can utilize
the information in formulating, if appropriate, or for testing any damage
calculation. Whether the use of Defendant’s purses in preparing a damage
model is appropriate is an issue left for another day in the context of a
-4-

Daubert motion. Plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding Request No. 10 is
therefore due to be granted. In producing the documents regarding
Defendant’s purse awards and payments from World of Boxing, Defendant
may mark those documents Proprietary Discovery Material in accordance
with the protective order in this case.
Request No. 14
In Request No. 14 Plaintiff seeks “production of all documents and
communications related to any e-mails sent or received from [Defendant’s]
E-mail Account on October 17, 2011.” Plaintiff requests these emails
because Defendant alleges that the Acquaintance forged his signature on
the promotional agreement and emailed the promotional agreement to
Salita on October 17, 2011. ECF No. 52 at 14–15. Defendant objects to
this request arguing that any emails sent from his email account would not
prove or disprove anything related to this case. Defendant says that
“Defendant should not be subject to the personal invasion of producing his
private communications, which Plaintiff admits could be personal and have
no content related to the case.” ECF No. 58 at 14–15.
Although Defendant’s email platform may be web-based, any emails
sent from that email account on October 17, 2011, arguably could shed
light on whether Defendant signed the promotional agreement. Moreover,
-5-

because the request is limited to emails generated on October 17, 2011
only and because the content of these emails could support or refute the
theory of whether someone else signed the promotional agreement,
Plaintiff’s motion to compel with regard to Request No. 14 is due to be
granted.
Request No. 18
In Request No. 18 Plaintiff seeks “production of all documents and
communications related to Defendant’s income and earnings for 2011 to
the present.” ECF No. 52 at 15. Defendant objects arguing that what
Defendant earned through promoters other than Plaintiff has no relevance
or relationship to Plaintiff’s claim for lost profits. Defendant further argues
that the request should be denied because Plaintiff offers no basis for why
it seeks income and earnings from Defendant from 2011 to 2014 when
Plaintiff allegedly was promoting Defendant. ECF No. 58 at 15–16.
While the Court agrees that Defendant’s income and earnings from
2011 to 2014— during the time Square Ring was promoting
Defendant—have at best marginal relevance, Defendant’s income and
earnings from 2014 to present are relevant because Plaintiff’s expert may
need to review this information in formulating Plaintiff’s damage model.
Even though the law provides that a claim for lost profits is based upon the
-6-

injured party’s lost profits and not the breaching party’s financial gain, a
damage expert in formulating a credible damage model, nonetheless, may
need to know the size and amount of the purses Defendant. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel with regard to Request No. 18, therefore, is due to be
granted to the extent that Defendant must produce documents relating to
his income and earnings from 2014 to present. Defendant does not need to
produce these documents from 2011 to 2014, during the time he was
promoted by Square Ring.
B.

Plaintiff Square Ring, Inc.’s First Motion for Enlargement of Time
Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the case management and

scheduling order deadlines by 30 days for two reasons. First, Plaintiff
seeks to depose Vadim Kornilov, an alleged senior executive for World of
Boxing, Defendant’s current promoter. Plaintiff subpoenaed Mr. Kornilov for
deposition scheduled for July 31, 2018 (within the discovery period).
Apparently, Mr. Kornilov is unavailable for deposition on July 31 or any
other date prior to the August 10, 2018, discovery deadline. Second,
Plaintiff says that its expert will need to review and consider some of the
documents at issue in Plaintiff’s motion to compel.
Under Rule 16(b)(4), “A schedule may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” Good cause requires showing that
-7-

“the schedule cannot ‘be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension.’” Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir.
1998) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note). If a party was
not diligent, then there is no good cause for an extension. See id.; Johnson
v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff represents that “[a]s a senior executive with WOB, Plaintiff
believes that Mr. Kornilov has possession or control of WOB documents
related to Defendant and that he likely has information regarding WOB’s
promotion of Defendant.” ECF No. 64 at 6. While the subpoena was served
and Kornilov’s deposition was scheduled near the discovery deadline, the
deposition was noticed to take place before the close of discovery. The
only reason an extension is requested for Kornilov’s deposition is because
of Kornilov’s schedule and not because Plaintiff failed to initiate this
discovery before the discovery deadline. Accordingly, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff has shown the requisite good cause and due diligence for an
extension of the discovery period and other remaining deadlines in this
case.
The Court has considered Defendant’s assertion that Mr. Kornilov is
not an employee of World of Boxing and that he does not have any
knowledge regarding any of the issues framed in the pleadings in this
-8-

case. That may or may not be the case. But that is an issue germane to a
motion to quash the subpoena and not an issue relevant to a motion
seeking to extend the discovery deadline. The discovery deadline and
other case management deadlines, as appropriate, will be extended thirty
(30) days so that Plaintiff can reschedule the deposition of Mr. Kornilov and
obtain the documents Defendant is required to produce in this order.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Square Ring, Inc.’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 51, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as explained above. Plaintiff
must produce the required documents responsive to Requests Nos. 5,
8, 10, 14, and 18 on or before August 20, 2018.
2. Plaintiff Square Ring, Inc.’s First Motion for Enlargement of Time,
ECF No. 64, is GRANTED to enable Plaintiff to reschedule Mr.
Kornilov’s deposition and so that Plaintiff can obtain the documents
Defendant will be producing in response to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Requests for Production.
3. The deadlines in the case management and scheduling order are
amended as follows:
All fact discovery must be completed by September 10, 2018.
The deadline for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of
full expert reports under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) is September 10,
2018.
The deadline for disclosing rebuttal experts and their reports, if any,
is October 10, 2018.

-9-

Depositions of expert witnesses must be completed by October 31,
2018.
All dispositive motions, including any Daubert motions, must be filed on
or before November 28, 2018.
DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of August 2018.

s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

- 10 -