Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. The Consulting Group, Inc. et al

Filing 217

ORDER: Accordingly, WVR Motion for Case Management Conference 200 is DENIED and WVR's Motion to Strike 210 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/15/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE CONSULTANT GROUP, SMOKEY
)
MOUNTAIN GETAWAYS, LLC, MOUNTAIN )
GETAWAYS, LLC, JEFF EARLE, SUPERIOR )
VACATIONS, INC. d/b/a SUPERIOR
)
TIMESHARE CLOSING, RAY SPIGNER,
)
MICHAEL DEAN SPIGNER, CHARLES
)
SIMERKA, JUDITH McGINTY, DANIEL
)
GARRETT, and CHRISTAL FRANKLIN,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00096
Judge Aleta A. Trauger

ORDER
Plaintiff WVR has filed a Motion for Case Management Conference (Docket No.
200), to which defendants Jeff Earle and SMG filed a Response (Docket No. 208), and
WVR filed a “Reply/Partial Motion to Strike” (Docket No. 210), which was docketed as
a pending motion.1 WVR contends that Earle and SMG have not provided relevant
discovery. Earle and SMG contend that WVR’s representations to the court about Earle
and SMG’s participation in the discovery process are disingenuous and that Earle and
SMG are prepared to participate in this case.
Based on the communications among counsel contained in the record, Earle and
SMG apparently sought to avoid participating in discovery pending the court’s resolution
of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion. In a separate Memorandum and Order addressing that

1

The parties are defined as described in the court’s May 14, 2014 Memorandum related to the
defendants’ Rule 12 Motions.
1

motion (as well as the Rule 12(c) motion filed by the Spigner Defendants), the court has
held that all but one of WVR’s claims against Earle and SMG will proceed. This ruling
presumably moots the ongoing dispute between WVR and Earle/SMG.
In light of the court’s rulings, the court expects that the parties will now confer in
an effort to come up with appropriate extensions of the deadlines in this case. The parties
shall submit proposed revised deadlines for the court’s consideration no later than May
23, 2014. If the parties cannot agree to proposed deadlines, the court will schedule a
Case Management Conference to resolve the issue. Be that as it may, the record indicates
that these parties and their attorneys are capable of cooperating, and the issues presented
lend themselves to mutual agreement and accommodation going forward.
On a final note, the court finds no need to strike Earle and SMG’s Response.
Accordingly, WVR Motion for Case Management Conference (Docket No. 200)
is DENIED and WVR’s Motion to Strike (Docket No. 210) is DENIED.
Enter this 15th day of May 2014.
_____________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge

2