Bridgetree, Inc. et al v. RED F Marketing LLC et al

Filing 108

ORDER denying 101 Motion to Compel; denying 101 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 1/3/2012. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-00228-FDW-DSC
BRIDGETREE, INC. AND TWO BIT DOG, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
RED F MARKETING LLC, ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
________________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the “Red F Defendants’ Motion for an Order
Compelling Discovery and Issuing Sanctions” (document #101), and the parties’ associated briefs
and exhibits. ( See documents ##101-1 through 101-8, 104, and 107).
This Motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1), and is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Defendants complain that Plaintiff Bridgetree has not produced sufficient documentation
“reflecting projected or actual expenses, revenues, or profits of projects lost based on alleged
wrongdoing of Red F Defendants” as required by the Court’s October 28, 2011 “Order.” See
document #98.
In response, Plaintiff credibly represents that it has produced “all documents in its possession
that it believes relate to lost business and lost business opportunities caused by the Red F
Defendants,” Plaintiff’s “Memorandum in Opposition ...” at 2 (document #104), “including
interrogatory answers which provide reasonable specificity about those specific customers and jobs
which were lost directly as a result of Defendant’s [sic] misappropriation and sabotage of

Bridgetree’s work efforts.” Id. As Plaintiff points out, Defendant may question Plaintiff’s witnesses
in depositions regarding lost business and may also challenge Plaintiff’s claims on the merits based
upon any insufficiency of the evidence. For these and the other reasons stated in Plaintiff’s brief,
Defendant’s Motion is denied.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1. “Red F Defendants’ Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery and Issuing Sanctions”
(document #101) is DENIED.
2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum and Order to counsel for the
parties; and to the Honorable Frank D. Whitney.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 3, 2012