Ascion, LLC v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al
Filing
184
OPINION & ORDER: 1. Magistrate Judge Atkins' Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (DE 179 ) is hereby ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Stay Deadline for Final Election of Asserted Claims (DE 68 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. Defendants' Motion to Supplement the Record for Purposes of Assessing Sanctions (DE 164 ) is GRANTED. 4. Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (DE 161 ) is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay for al l costs associated with the Defendants' pursuit of sanctions and the drafting of the supplemental filings entered in support thereof, as well as the time that counsel expended in briefing the aforementioned issues before the Court. 5. Defenda nts' unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (DE 183 ) is GRANTED. 6. The parties shall file all dispositive motions and motions in limine, including those made pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), no later than August 22, 2022. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 8/10/22.(JLM)cc: COR and attys Kolozsvary, Weed, Rucker by US Mail Modified on 8/10/2022 (JLM).
Case: 5:17-cv-00403-JMH-EBA Doc #: 184 Filed: 08/10/22 Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#: 6048
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
ASCION, LLC, d/b/a/ Reverie,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEMPUR SEALY INT’L, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
***
Civil Case No.
5:17-CV-403-JMH-EBA
OPINION and ORDER
***
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for
Sanctions (DE 161), and in particular, whether dismissal of this
action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) is warranted. The present
issue was referred to the Honorable Edward Atkins. (DE 162). On
July 13, 2022, Judge Atkins issued his Report and Recommendation
(DE 179), recommending that Defendants’ motion for sanctions be
granted to the extent that the Court order Plaintiff to pay fees
incurred in connection with Defendants’ pursuit of sanctions and
all associated filings. (Id. at 19-20). There are no objections to
consider. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, the Court finds Judge Atkins' recommendations to
be well reasoned and correct. In so finding, the Court notes that
the Report (DE 179) displays a thorough understanding of the
posture of this case, taking into account all pertinent deadlines
and events from the inception of this case, carefully considering
Page 1 of 3
Case: 5:17-cv-00403-JMH-EBA Doc #: 184 Filed: 08/10/22 Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#: 6049
each side’s respective positions and all arguments advanced by the
parties in their briefings.
Finally,
on
an
unrelated
note,
the
Court
considers
Defendants’ most recent Motion (DE 183), requesting a one-week
extension of time for which to file dispositive motions and motions
in limine. Plaintiff does not oppose the requested relief,
as no
impact would result on current trial deadlines. (Id. at 2; DE 1831, ¶ 5). As such, having considered counsel’s declaration in
support of the motion, as well as the reason proffered for the
extension, the Court FINDS good cause to grant Defendants’ motion.
For the foregoing reasons, finding itself fully advised in
the premises, and finding itself in agreement with the analysis in
Judge
Atkins’
Report
and
Recommendation
(DE
179),
the
Court
CONCLDUES that the conclusions therein should be adopted in full,
without comment.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
Magistrate Judge Atkins’ Report and Recommendation on
Defendants' Motion
for
Sanctions
(DE
179)
is
hereby ADOPTED IN FULL.
2.
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Stay Deadline for Final
Election of Asserted Claims (DE 68) is DENIED AS MOOT.
3.
Defendants’ Motion to Supplement the Record for Purposes
of Assessing Sanctions (DE 164) is GRANTED.
Page 2 of 3
Case: 5:17-cv-00403-JMH-EBA Doc #: 184 Filed: 08/10/22 Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#: 6050
4.
Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (DE 161) is GRANTED
insofar as Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay for all costs
associated with the Defendants’ pursuit of sanctions and
the
drafting
of
the
supplemental
filings
entered
in
support thereof, as well as the time that counsel expended
in briefing the aforementioned issues before the Court.
5.
Defendants’ unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (DE
183) is GRANTED.
6.
The
parties
motions
in
shall
limine,
file
all
including
dispositive
those
made
motions
pursuant
and
to
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993),
no later than August 22, 2022.
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022.
Page 3 of 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?