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

Filing 261

ORDER: The motion to file a surreply (Docket Entry 256) is GRANTED only so far as the Clerk will file the attached surreply. The parties are directed to not file any more motions concerning striking of pleadings. This matter is set for an in-court h earing on all the pending motions which have been referred to the undersigned by Judge Trauger on August 5, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 783. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/17/14. (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
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COOKEVILLE DIVISION
WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
THE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:12-0096
Judge Trauger/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
Since a motion was filed by the Plaintiff to prohibit the
destruction of evidence as to Smokey Mountain Getaways by the
Plaintiff (Docket Entry 238) on June 24, 2014, the parties have
begun to file increasingly heated pleadings and additional motions
to strike and for sanctions (Docket Entries 256, 257, 259). There
have also been requests to file replies and surreplies, which
appear to be of ever increasing lengths.1
Some of the motions are not well described by the parties
filing them. For instance, Docket Entry 256 is listed as a “MOTION
for Leave to Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion Docket No. 238.” The
actual motion is for leave to file a surreply. Counsel need to be
careful in listing what their motion is about. Plaintiff’s original
motion with attachments is 235 pages long. Much of it is not
particularly relevant to the actual issue. The Magistrate Judge is
not going to blindly root for truffles in their pleadings.
The Magistrate Judge fails to see why Wyndham would not
list known
1

owners. This is not trial by ambush. On the other

Surely, the parties can agree on the current name of the parties
and quit wasting time and paper saying a party is incorrectly named.

hand, SMG is protesting too much about not furnishing requests to
rescind or actual rescissions and all complaints made against them.
The motion to file a surreply (Docket Entry 256) is
GRANTED only so far as the Clerk will file the attached surreply
(Docket Entry 256-2).2 The parties are directed to not file any
more motions concerning striking of pleadings. This Magistrate
Judge feels he is fully capable of seeing what needs to be struck
and what does not without further assistance of counsel.
Counsel

are

cautioned

that

the

Magistrate

Judge

is

extremely disappointed with the pleadings that have been referred
to him in this matter. Both sides are losing sight of the legal
issues and resorting to name calling. The Magistrate Judge does not
intend to referee a mud wrestling contest between counsel.
This matter is set for an in-court hearing on all the
pending motions which have been referred to the undersigned by
Judge Trauger on August 5, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 783.3
The Magistrate Judge expects the parties to be prepared
to explain their various accusations in this case and either
withdraw them or support them. If there is truly unethical conduct
the conduct must be reported to the Board of Professional Conduct.
(See Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8.4(a)). The Magistrate Judge may
consider sanctions against both sides in this case. Apparently, the

2

Any further replies filed in matters before me are limited to five

pages.
3

Two days prior to the hearing the parties will submit a JOINT
STATEMENT succinctly stating, without further argument, the issues that
remain in this case regarding Docket Entry 238.

2

parties have a serious dispute over discovery requests dealing with
requests to rescind contracts and rescinded contracts and consumer
complaints. The Magistrate Judge is seriously considering cutting
through this excessive verbiage and directing the Defendant to
provide all rescission requests,

rescinded contracts and consumer

complaints without arguing over whether they are Wyndham’s or
someone else’s. If documents relating to these requests have
actually been destroyed after notice of this litigation spoliation
will be a serious issue. If the parties can resolve the discovery
issues the spoliation issues are reduced.
The parties need to actually talk to each other. Snippy
emails or unanswered correspondence and calls are not good faith
discussions between counsel as required by the rules.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3