STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. OOGLES N GOOGLES et al

Filing 24

BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 23 MOTION to Compel Initial Disclosures from Defendants filed by STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC.. (Hoover, John)

Download PDF
STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. OOGLES N GOOGLES et al Doc. 24 Case 1:05-cv-00354-DFH-TAB Document 24 Filed 07/07/2005 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. OOGLES N GOOGLES, an Indiana corporation; KEVIN MENDELL, an individual; DANYA MENDELL, an individual; and X, Y, Z CORPORATIONS, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:05-cv-0354-DFH-TAB MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES FROM DEFENDANTS Plaintiff Stelor Productions, Inc. ("Stelor") hereby submits this memorandum in support of its motion to compel initial disclosures and the identities of franchisees from Defendants Oogles N Googles, Kevin Mendell, Danya Mendell, and X,Y, Z Corporations. In support of said motion, Stelor states as follows: Defendants have ignored their obligation to provide initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(1). See also Rule 37(a) (providing that parties may move for an order compelling initial disclosures). These initial disclosures are long past due. The Case Management Plan requires that initial disclosures would be due on or before June 11, 2005. Defendant has failed to make those disclosures. Defendants' counsel, furthermore, represented Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-00354-DFH-TAB Document 24 Filed 07/07/2005 Page 2 of 3 to Magistrate Judge Baker at the June 1, 2005 status conference that it would disclose the identity of its franchisees so that Plaintiff could add them as parties in a timely manner. Stelor is prejudiced by this failure to make disclosures because the deadline for amending the complaint to add parties is August 11, 2005. Defendant's delay in providing the identities of the franchisees appears to be an unsubtle ploy to run out the clock on this amendment. Wherefore, pursuant to Rules 26(a)(1) and 37(a), Stelor respectfully moves for an compelling Defendants to make their 26(a)(1) disclosures, disclose the identifies of Oogles N Googles's franchisees, pay Stelor's expenses and fees in bringing this motion, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Certificate of Conference Undersigned counsel certifies that he and his office has conferred extensively with counsel for Defendants, but the parties were unable to resolve the issues set forth herein. Defendants' counsel finally called and represented that he was working on the initial disclosures, but committed to no specific date for service of them and, as of now, we have not received it. Respectfully submitted, John David Hoover, Attorney No. 7945-49 HOOVER HULL BAKER & HEATH LLP Attorneys at Law 111 Monument Circle, Ste. 4400 P.O. Box 44989 Indianapolis, IN 46244-0989 Phone: (317) 822-4400 Fax: (317) 822-0234 E-mail: jdhoover@hooverhull.com 2 Case 1:05-cv-00354-DFH-TAB Document 24 Filed 07/07/2005 Page 3 of 3 Of counsel (admitted pro hac vice): s/Kevin C. Kaplan Kevin C. Kaplan Burlington, Weil, Schwiep, Kaplan & Blonsky, P.A. 2699 S. Bayshore Drive PH Miami, Florida 33133 Tel: (305) 858-2900 Fax: (305) 858-5261 Email: kkaplan@bwskb.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Stelor Productions, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 7, 2005, a copy of the foregoing Memorandum In Support of Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures from Defendants was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following party by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. Bryan S. Redding Cohen Garelick & Glazier bredding@cgglawfirm.com s/Kevin C. Kaplan Kevin C. Kaplan Burlington, Weil, Schwiep, Kaplan & Blonsky, P.A. 2699 S. Bayshore Drive PH Miami, Florida 33133 Tel: (305) 858-2900 Fax: (305) 858-5261 Email: kkaplan@bwskb.com 3

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?