Pipeline Productions, Inc. v. The Madison Companies, LLC, et al
Filing
815
ORDER overruling as moot 761 Motion for Reconsideration re 735 Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 2/7/2020. (ydm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS, INC., et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE MADISON COMPANIES, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________________)
CIVIL ACTION
No. 15-4890-KHV
ORDER
On January 9, 2020, while partially granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
the Court found that Brett Mosiman was no longer a plaintiff in the case, so he had no claims for
damages to recover amounts which he had allegedly incurred as personal debt. Memorandum And
Order (Doc. #735) at 25. The Court also held that Pipeline Productions, Inc. and Backwood
Enterprises LLC could not recover for his personal debts. Id. On January 23, 2020, plaintiffs filed
their Motion To Reconsider Portions Of Court’s Order (Doc. 735) Granting In Part Defendants’
Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #761). In that motion, plaintiffs ask the Court to clarify the
scope of its order on Mosiman’s personal debts. Specifically, Pipeline and Backwood assert that
they should be able to recover items of debt or loss that they incurred, “notwithstanding how those
items were characterized in York’s now excluded report.” Plaintiffs refer to the Steven York
Report (Doc. #761-1) filed January 23, 2020, which characterized specific amounts as personal
debt which Mosiman was required to assume.1
The amounts as to which plaintiffs sought reconsideration were listed in York’s
report as follows: $112,251 for “TSYS,” $42,850 for “Thunder vendors,” $832,027 for “Thunder
ticketing refunds” and $172,500 for “Pipeline overhead.” See Steven York Report (Doc. #761-1)
at 2.
1
Plaintiffs’ motion is now moot. On January 31, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge Teresa J.
James entered a Second Amended Pretrial Order (Doc. #795), which specifies plaintiffs’ damage
claims for each substantive cause of action. As best the Court can ascertain, these damage claims
do not include the specific amounts at issue in plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider.2
Furthermore, during trial, the Court has devoted vast amounts of time and energy to the
question of what types and amounts of damages are available to plaintiffs. The Court has not
categorically rejected any type or amount of damages on the ground that York previously
characterized it as a debt or loss that Mosiman was required to personally assume.
Plaintiffs’ damage claims have been the paradigmatically moving target, and plaintiffs
have had multiple chances to iterate, re-iterate and re-re-iterate their damage claims. E.g., Id.;
Steven
York
Report
November 15, 2019;
(Doc. #761-1);
Plaintiffs’
Amended
Response
To
Pretrial
Show
Order
Cause
Order
(Doc.
#660)
filed
(Doc. #791)
filed
January 30, 2020. After days of uninterrupted opportunity to make their best case on their theories
and amounts of damages, they have almost entirely failed to satisfy the two relevant threshold
inquiries: (1) whether they breached their duties to initially disclose a computation for each
category of damages claimed under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and to supplement those computations
2
The damage claims in the second amended pretrial order are $750,000 pursuant to
the contract, $80,000 for seven years pursuant to the contract, $4,500 to retrain and rehire
replacement employees, $700,000 in lost sponsorships, $1.4 million “for the cost of the
sponsorship obtained by Sprocket for Thunder over seven years” and $1.5 million “for lost
investment in Thunder.” Second Amended Pretrial Order (Doc. #795) filed January 31, 2020 at
30-31. The computations which underlie some of these numbers is unclear because plaintiffs never
disclosed their damage calculations in compliance with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), Fed. R. Civ. P. The
numbers in the second amended pretrial order apparently do not include the specific expenses at
issue in plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider. Because the second amended pretrial order controls the
course of plaintiffs’ damage claims, it moots their request to pursue the damages itemized in
Footnote 1.
-2-
under Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.; and (2) whether notwithstanding said breach, they should be
allowed to testify about their damage computations at trial.3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider Portions Of
Court’s Order (Doc. 735) Granting In Part Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment
(Doc. #761) filed January 23, 2020 is OVERRULED as moot.
Dated this 7th day of February, 2020 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
On January 30, 2020, four days before trial, plaintiffs responded to the Court’s
Order To Show Cause (Doc. #779) filed January 28, 2020, and outlined their damage claims for
each substantive cause of action. See Plaintiffs’ Response To Show Cause Order (Doc. #791).
Under the breach of contract claim, Backwood sought $750,000 pursuant to the contract,
$6,360,000 for lost value of the Thunder festival, $3,356,000 in lost profits and $2,510,000 in
consequential damages. On the breach of contract claim, Pipeline sought $80,000 annually for
seven years, for a total of $560,000, and $230,000 in consequential damages. On the breach of
fiduciary duty claim, Backwood sought $750,000 pursuant to the contract, $6,360,000 for lost
value of the Thunder festival, $3,356,000 in lost profits and $2,510,000 in consequential damages.
On the breach of fiduciary duty claim, Pipeline sought $80,000 annually for seven years, for a total
of $560,000, $230,000 in consequential damages and punitive damages. On the tortious
interference claim, each plaintiff claims $4,500 to replace or retrain employees, $1,400,000 in lost
sponsorships for Thunder, $700,000 for lost sponsorships for Pipeline, $1,500,000 in lost
investment in Thunder and punitive damages.
Plaintiffs had not previously disclosed any computations regarding the source of these
amounts, and they made no serious attempt to establish that their violation of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii)
was substantially justified or harmless, and that they therefore should be allowed to put those
claims into evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
3
-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?