Brand Services, LLC v. Irex Corporation

Filing 137

ORDER: ORDERED that 134 Motion to Expedite Consideration of the Motion for Extension of time to Submit Order and to Extend the Submission Date is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 133 Motion for Extension of time to Submit Order and to Extend t he Submission Date for Its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Decision Denying Motion to Enforce Court Order is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 122 Motion for Reconsideration of the Courts Decision Denying Motion to Enforce Court Order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (cml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRAND SERVICES, LLC

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO:

IREX CORPORATION

SECTION: “H” (4)

15-5712

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff Brand Services, LLC (“Brand”)’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Decision Denying Motion to Enforce Court Order (R. Doc.
122) asking this Court to reconsider its denial of Brand’s prior Motion to Enforce Court Order.
Also before the Court are Brand’s Motion for Extension of time to Submit Order and to Extend
the Submission Date for Its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Decision Denying
Motion to Enforce Court Order (R. Doc. 133) and a Motion to Expedite Consideration of the
Motion for Extension of time to Submit Order and to Extend the Submission Date for Its
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Decision Denying Motion to Enforce Court Order
(R. Doc. 134).
As part of its motion for reconsideration, Brand argues that a number of documents
demonstrate that Irex Corporation (“Irex”) has not complied with its discovery obligations to
supplemental prior discovery responses. However, those documents were discovered in a separate
lawsuit in Pennsylvania and are subject to a protective order which limits those documents to use
in that lawsuit only. R. Doc. 122-1, p. 3. Brand has filed a motion seeking leave to use the
documents in the Louisiana lawsuit. R. Doc. 133-2. Before the Court can consider the instant
motion, it must determine if the alleged documents are properly considered by it. The Court has
previously ordered Brand to produce proof that the Pennsylvania court has permitted those
documents to be used in this litigation. At this time, Brand has stated that it is still waiting for the
Pennsylvania Court to rule on its motion to use those documents. R. Doc. 133. As such, at this
time, the Court cannot consider those documents and finds that it is imprudent to consider the

motion for reconsideration. However, given that it is unclear when the Pennsylvania Court may
rule on that motion, the Court does not know when it can continue the submission date on the
motion for reconsideration and will not continue that date indefinitely. Therefore, the Court will
GRANT the motion to expedite, DENY the motion to continue, and DENY WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO REFILE the motion for reconsideration. Brand may refile its motion once it
has obtained permission to use those documents in this court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Brand Services, LLC’ s Motion to Expedite Consideration of the
Motion for Extension of time to Submit Order and to Extend the Submission Date for Its
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Decision Denying Motion to Enforce Court Order
(R. Doc. 134) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brand Services, LLC’ s Motion for Extension of time
to Submit Order and to Extend the Submission Date for Its Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court’s Decision Denying Motion to Enforce Court Order (R. Doc. 133) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brand Services, LLC’ s Motion for Reconsideration
of the Court’s Decision Denying Motion to Enforce Court Order (R. Doc. 122) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of July 2017.

KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2