WINE & CANVAS DEVELOPMENT LLC v. WEISSER et al

Filing 287

ORDER denying 255 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court. The deposition of Mr. McCracken may resume consistent with the Magistrate Judge's rulings contained in Docket entry 256. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/8/2014 (dist made) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
WINE & CANVAS DEVELOPMENT LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
THEODORE WEISSER, CHRISTOPHER
MUYLLE, YN CANVAS CA, LLC,
WEISSER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
Defendants.
______________________________________
CHRISTOPHER MUYLLE,
THEODORE WEISSER,
Counter Claimants,
v.
WINE & CANVAS DEVELOPMENT LLC,
WINE & CANVAS DEVELOPMENT LLC,
Counter Defendants.
______________________________________
CHRISTOPHER MUYLLE,
Third Party Plaintiff,
v.
TAMARA SCOTT, DONALD McCRACKEN,
ANTHONY SCOTT,
Third Party Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:11-cv-01598-TWP-DKL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ENTRY ON APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Wine & Canvas Development, LLC’s (“Wine
& Canvas”) Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision (Dkt. 255) denying the Verified Motion for
Protective Order (Dkt. 254). Wine & Canvas sought a protective order to prevent Defendant /

Third-Party Plaintiff Christopher Muylle (“Mr. Muylle”) from asking Third-Party Defendant
Donald McCracken (“Mr. McCracken”) about the legality of his daughter’s, Tamara Scott’s,1
marriage to Tony Scott—both of whom are also Third-Party Defendants. The Magistrate Judge
denied the motion, finding that the line of questioning was relevant to the Third-Party
Defendant’s credibility and that Wine & Canvas had not shown good cause for the protective
order. Wine & Canvas now seeks review of that decision. For the following reasons, the appeal
is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
A brief recitation of the factual background is appropriate.

Mr. McCracken is the

proprietor of Wine & Canvas. His daughter, Tamara Scott and purported “son-in-law”, Tony
Scott, run the daily operations of Wine & Canvas. In 2009, Tamara Scott and Tony Scott
planned a wedding on board a cruise ship. At the time, Tony Scott was going through a divorce.
As the wedding approached, Mr. Scott was not able to finalize his divorce, but the couple
decided to go through with the wedding ceremony with the plan that they would legalize the
marriage at a later date. However, they kept this fact a secret from Mr. McCracken. To date,
Mr. Scott’s divorce is not finalized and Mr. McCracken mistakenly believes that his daughter is
legally married to Tony Scott. Both Tamara Scott and Tony Scott have admitted under oath that
their marriage is not legal and that they have lied and continue to lie to Mr. McCracken about
this fact.
Despite the couple’s admissions, Mr. Muylle intends to question Mr. McCracken about
the legality of Tamara and Tony Scott’s marriage. Tony Scott and Tamara Scott seek to prevent

1

The parties vary the spelling of Tamara Scott’s name. In their briefing the parties spell her first name Tamra and
use the last name “McCracken”. However, in the caption her first name is spelled “Tamara” and her last name is
listed as Scott. In this entry, the Court uses the name and spelling set forth in the caption. If this is incorrect, the
parties should file a corrected spelling notice with the Court.

Mr. Muylle from revealing their secret to Mr. McCracken. Specifically, they seek to prohibit
questions about whether the alleged marriage and alleged divorce are legally proper.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A district judge may refer a non-dispositive matter to a magistrate judge to decide and
hear. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A party may file objections to a magistrate judge’s written order,
and the “district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any
part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A
magistrate judge is given broad discretion in controlling discovery. Jones v. City of Elkhart, 737
F.3d 1107, 1116 (7th Cir. 2013).
III. DISCUSSION
Protective orders are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A party seeking
a protective order must establish that good cause exists to enter the order. Good cause is
established by showing that the disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury.
Felling v. Knight, No. IP 01-0571-C-T/K, 2001 WL 1782360, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2001).
Wine & Canvas’ only argument is that the line of questioning into the legality of Tamara Scott
and Tony Scott’s marriage is intended solely to harass and ruin the relationship between father
and daughter. The Magistrate Judge found that the parties’ credibility was highly relevant, and
Wine & Canvas’ lone argument failed to establish good cause.

Mr. Muylle has stated a

legitimate reason for seeking the information in discovery because the credibility of Tamara
Scott’s and Tony Scott’s statements to Mr. McCracken regarding Wine & Canvas’ business
operations are at issue, thus the fact that they have lied to him about their marriage for
approximately 4 to 5 years is relevant to their overall credibility. The Court agrees, and finds
that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Wine & Canvas’ appeal (Dkt. 255) is DENIED. The deposition of Mr.
McCracken may resume consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s rulings contained in Docket
Entry 256.

SO ORDERED.
04/08/2014
Date: _____________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
DISTRIBUTION:
Theodore Weisser
25 Rodeo Avenue, Apt. 2
Sausalito, California 94965
P. Adam Davis
DAVIS & SARBINOFF LLP
[e-mail]
Carol Nemeth Joven
PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
[e-mail]
Ronald J. Waicukauski
PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
[e-mail]