CrossFit, Inc. v. Mustapha et al

Filing 122

Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein: ORDER entered # 32 Motion for Contempt is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; # 80 Motion to Compel is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; # 88 Motion for Modification IS TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT; # 110 Motion to Compel is ALLOWED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (Quinn, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CROSSFIT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONNY MUSTAPHA, individually,
and d/b/a CHELMSFORD SPORTS
CLUB,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-11498-FDS

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
This matter is before the court on (1) “CrossFit’s Motion for a Finding of
Contempt and Modification of Preliminary Injunction” (Docket No. 32); (2) the
defendants’ “Motion to Compel Non-Party Discovery” (Docket No. 80); (3) “CrossFit’s
Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction” (Docket No. 88); and (4) “CrossFit’s Motion
to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Document Requests” (Docket No. 110).
After consideration of the parties’ written submissions and their oral arguments, it is
hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

CrossFit’s motion for a finding of contempt and for modification of the

Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 32) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as follows:
a.

In order to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the present
scope of the Preliminary Injunction, and without admitting
liability, the defendants have agreed to refrain from using the
Protected Mark pending the outcome of the litigation.
Therefore, by agreement, paragraph 4 of the Preliminary

Injunction Order entered on September 30, 2013 shall be
stricken.
b.

2.

The motion for a finding of contempt is denied without
prejudice to renewal in the event the defendants fail to adhere
to the terms of the Preliminary Injunction as modified herein.

The defendants’ motion to compel (Docket No. 80) is ALLOWED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

b.

The defendants shall work with Facebook to obtain the information
requested from that entity. The motion to compel Facebook to
respond to the defendants’ discovery requests is otherwise denied.

c.

3.

The plaintiff shall identify the two individuals from CrossFit
who, in addition to Mr. Berger, were involved in the creation
and/or operation of the CrossFit Ripoff Report.

To the extent either of the parties receives relevant information from
Facebook, it shall disclose such information to the opposing party.

With respect to CrossFit’s February 25, 2014 motion to modify the

Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 88), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
a.

By April 28, 2014, the defendants shall provide the plaintiff
with the potential variations of “CrossBox” (e.g., “Crossbox”
or “Cross-Box”), “CrossKick,” “CrossTrain,” and any other
version of “Cross” (other than “CrossFit”) that they would
agree to be restricted to using pending a final resolution of
this case.

b.

The plaintiff shall respond to the defendants’ proposal by
May 2, 2014.

c.

The parties shall notify the court if they are able to reach an
agreement. However, if no agreement has been reached, the
parties shall appear for a hearing to address the plaintiff’s
motion on May 7, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom #15 on
the 5th floor.
2

4.

CrossFit’s motion to compel responses to its discovery requests (Docket

No. 110) is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
Document Requests
a.

By May 2, 2014, the defendants shall produce all documents
that are responsive to the plaintiff’s requests for documents.

b.

To the extent the defendants withhold any documents based
on a claim of privilege, they shall list such documents on a
privilege log and provide the log to the plaintiff by May 14,
2014.
Interrogatories

c.

The defendants shall provide a written response to
Interrogatory No. 2(e) regarding persons and/or third parties
involved with the Marketing Effort. The response shall cover
the time period from January 1, 2012 to the present.

d.

The defendants shall provide a written response to
Interrogatory No. 17 regarding expected, projected, and actual
sales, revenues and profits. The response shall cover the time
period from January 1, 2012 to the present.

e.

The defendants shall provide a written response to
Interrogatory No. 18 concerning the number of members of
the Chelmsford and/or CrossTrain Club. The response shall
cover the time period from January 1, 2012 to the present.

f.

The defendants shall provide a response to Interrogatory No.
19 regarding the defendants’ social media website or related
service accounts. If appropriate, the defendants may respond
by referencing documents.

g.

The motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 20 is
denied. The plaintiff may seek the requested information
through deposition testimony.

3

h.

The defendants shall provide a written response to
Interrogatory No. 23 concerning their relationship with Austin
Heckman. The response shall cover the time period from
January 1, 2012 to the present.

i.

The defendants shall provide a written response to
Interrogatory Nos. 24(d), 24(e) and 24(f) relating to their
communications with Mr. Breire. The response shall cover
the time period from January 1, 2012 to the present. No
response to Interrogatory Nos. 24(a), 24(b) or 24(c) is
necessary.

j.

The motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 25 is
denied on the grounds that the Interrogatory is too broad.
However, nothing herein shall preclude CrossFit from
propounding a more narrowly tailored Interrogatory to the
defendants.

k.

The defendants shall complete all of their Interrogatory
responses by May 9, 2014.

/ s / Judith Gail Dein
Judith Gail Dein
U.S. Magistrate Judge
DATED: April 25, 2014

4