Pipeline Productions, Inc. v. The Madison Companies, LLC, et al

Filing 104

ORDER finding as moot 68 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge K. Gary Sebelius on 2/27/2018. (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
BACKWOOD ENTERPRISES, LLC,
OK PRODUCTIONS, INC., and
BRETT MOSIMAN,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE MADISON COMPANIES, LLC,
)
and HORSEPOWER ENTERTAINMENT, )
LLC,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 15-4890-KHV

ORDER
This matter comes before the court upon plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order (ECF No.
68). For the following reasons, this motion is deemed moot.
The case arises from a failed music concert in Arkansas. Plaintiffs filed this action on May
21, 2015. Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to purchase 51% of their “Thunder on the
Mountain” music festival in exchange for $750,000, advancing $500,000 of operating capital for
the festival, and paying certain operating expenses related to the festival. Plaintiffs further allege
that the concert had to be cancelled when defendants reneged on the agreement. Plaintiffs have
asserted claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and tortious interference.
They seek damages resulting from defendants’ breach, including money owed to ticketholders.
In 2016, a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas against three of the plaintiffs in this case—Pipeline Productions, Inc.; Backwood
Enterprises, Inc.; and Brett Mosiman—and defendants The Madison Companies, LLC; and
Horsepower Entertainment, LLC. In this case, the ticketholders from the Thunder on the Mountain

music festival alleged that the defendants breached contracts and were unjustly enriched. Default
judgment was entered against Pipeline, Backwood and Mosiman. Madison and Horsepower issued
subpoenas duces tecum to Pipeline’s former attorney, Matt Gough; Pipeline’s accountant, Colleen
Hodge; Central Bank of Midwest; and Intrust Bank.
In the instant motion, plaintiffs seek a protective order to stop Madison and Horsepower
from serving the subpoenas in the Arkansas action. Plaintiffs contend that this court should not
allow Madison and Horsepower to obtain discovery for this case through the service of subpoenas
in the Arkansas action that are “irrelevant, abusive and overbroad,” particularly since plaintiffs
cannot defend themselves in that case.
On February 26, 2018, in the Arkansas action, plaintiffs and defendants Madison and
Horsepower filed an agreed order of dismissal. The joint stipulation dismissed plaintiffs’ claims
against Madison and Horsepower with prejudice.

Due to the dismissal of Madison and

Horsepower in the Arkansas action, the court finds the instant motion moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order (ECF No.
68) is deemed moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ K. Gary Sebelius
K. Gary Sebelius
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2