Bridgeport Music Inc, et al v. Deep Technology Musi, et al

Filing 198

ORDER: Non-party Janyce Tilmon-Jones's 136 Motion and Brief for Relief from an Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) or, in the alternative for Post-Judgment Discovery, treated by the Court as a motion to reopen the case, is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 3/7/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(rd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
BRIDGEPORT MUSIC, INC., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs
)
)
v.
)
)
DEEP TECHNOLOGY MUSIC, INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
and
)
)
3:01-0733 (EMI April)
)
3:01-0935 (Careers-BMG)
)
3:01-0971 (EMI Blackwood)
)
3:01-1037 (Careers-BMG)
)
3:01-1105 (Elektra)
)
3:01-1156 (Remedi)
)
)
Defendants
)

No. 3:01-718
Judge Campbell/Brown
Jury Demand

ORDER1
For the reasons stated below the Magistrate Judge DENIES
nonparty

Janyce

Tilmon-Jones’s

motions

to

reopen

these

seven

cases:2

1

The Magistrate Judge believes these Motions, made by a non-party
purportedly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, are akin to a motion to amend a
complaint and are therefore non-dispositive. See, e.g., Leonardson v.
Peek, 2009 WL 89647 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2009) (reviewing the Magistrate
Judge’s grant of a motion to amend under the “clearly erroneous”
standard). If the District Judge considers these Motions dispositive,
this Order may alternatively be considered a Report and Recommendation.
2

The pleadings in these seven cases are identical except for the
docket entry number. In order to keep this Order easier to read the
Magistrate Judge will only use the docket numbers in the Deep Technology
Music case 3:01-718 wherever possible.

Case No.

Deep Technology
EMI April
Careers-BMG
EMI Blackwood
Careers-BMG
Elektra
Remedi

Docket Entry
Aug. 25, 2011

136
30
30
129
74
43
12

3:01-0718
3:01-0733
3:01-0935
3:01-0971
3:01-1037
3:01-1105
3:01-1156

Docket Entry
Nov. 1, 2011

159
52
52
145
95
62
31

BACKGROUND
In each of these seven cases a nonparty, Janyce TilmonJones (Ms. Tilmon), has filed a motion and brief requesting that
the judgment in these matters be set aside pursuant to Rule 60(b),3
or in the alternate, to allow post-judgment discovery (Docket Entry
136).
Ms. Tilmon alleges that in these seven cases Bridgeport
resolved claims concerning the musical work “You’re Getting a
Little Too Smart” and that Bridgeport did not have the right to
settle or resolve these cases at that time.4

She claims she became

the legal owner of all copyright interest in the song, and that
Bridgeport was aware of her rights and ownership no later than
February 13, 2004.

She alleges that on that date Bridgeport filed

a copyright renewal application for “You’re Getting a Little Too

3

The Magistrate Judge has serious doubts regarding the applicability
of Rule 60 in this case, as Ms. Tilmon was never a party to the
underlying suit. However, as the Magistrate Judge believes Ms. Tilmon’s
Motions should be denied for other reasons, the undersigned has not
decided this issue.
4

Ms. Tilmon’s late husband originally held the copyright for this
work and sold it to Bridgeport prior to his death.

2

Smart” in the name of Ms. Tilmon with the United States Copyright
office claiming to be her authorized agent.
Ms. Tilmon alleges that even though Bridgeport was aware
of her interest they (1) never informed her of these seven pending
cases, (2) never informed the Court about the existence of Ms.
Tilmon and her rights, and (3) apparently reached settlement terms
with the remaining Defendants without ever disclosing the existence
of the settlement terms to Ms. Tilmon.
Ms. Tilmon further requests that if the Court does not
agree to set aside the judgments in these cases pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b), she be allowed to conduct post-judgment discovery to
understand the nature of the settlement reached with the named
parties to determine if she is entitled to relief under 60(b)(3) or
60(d)(3).
This matter was initially briefed (Docket Entry 139) and
referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation on any
dispositive

matters,

and

for

decision

on

any

non-dispositive

matters (Docket Entry 141).
After this initial briefing, the original Plaintiff
Bridgeport5 then filed a motion for sanctions and assessment of
fees against Ms. Tilmon (Docket Entry 152) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

This pleading was placed under seal

5

For convenience the Magistrate Judge will refer to the Plaintiff as
Bridgeport throughout the remainder of this Order. None of the original
Defendants has filed any pleadings in this matter.

3

because it went into terms of the settlement of an earlier case
against Bridgeport by Ms. Tilmon, which Bridgeport contends gave
them a full release from any and all claims Ms. Tilmon might have
against them (Tilmon Jones v. Bolidian, et al., (E.D. Mich.) Case
5:06-14048).
At

this

straightforward.

point

the

motions

were

relatively

Unfortunately, they soon became as murky as the

Mississippi River in full flood.

The Magistrate Judge, as best he

can, will try to summarize the three Michigan litigations inasmuch
as it bears on the present motions.
The first case is Bridgeport Music, et al. v. Smith, et
al. (E.D. Mich.) 2:03-CV-72211.6

In 2003, Bridgeport sued a number

of Defendants for infringing the work “You’re Getting a Little Too
Smart,” for which they claimed a copyright. Docket Entry 35
reflects that this case was closed on March 9, 2005, with a
judgment in favor of Bridgeport against all defendants who had not
previously been dismissed. This case was assigned to Judge Borman.
Ms. Tilmon, acting through attorneys, filed motions to vacate that
judgment and to allow her to intervene on March 9, 2011.

The

motion is strikingly similar to the motion Ms. Tilmon has filed pro
se in the seven Nashville cases she now seeks to reopen.

6

In discussing the Michigan cases the docket entries will refer to
the docket entries for each individual case in the Michigan court.

4

The second Michigan case started on September 14, 2006,
when Ms. Tilmon, acting through attorneys, filed a complaint
against Mr. Boladian and Bridgeport alleging that Mr. Tilmon was
the writer and creator of a number of songs, including Item 21 in
Attachment A, “You’re Getting a Little Too Smart.” Tilmon-Jones v.
Boladian, et al. (E.D. Mich.) Case No. 5:06-CV-14040 (Docket Entry
1).

This complaint alleges specifically that Bridgeport failed to

pay appropriate royalties to Ms. Tilmon as the statutory successor
to Mr. Tilmon for the two specific songs “Feel the Need in Me” and
“Yes, I Know I’m in Love.”
O’Meara.

This litigation was assigned to Judge

The case was dismissed after settlement on September 6,

2007 (Docket Entry 37).

On January 26, 2010, Ms. Tilmon, acting

through a new attorney, moved to set aside the closing of that case
and to enforce various sanctions against Bridgeport for allegedly
failing to provide necessary information to Ms. Tilmon during the
course of settlement of that case (Docket Entry 42).

This motion

was withdrawn on February 18, 2010 (Docket Entry 48), apparently
after Bridgeport sent to Plaintiff a notice of their intent to seek
Rule 11 sanctions.
A new motion to set aside the stipulated order dismissing
the case was filed on November 19, 2010, again alleging fraud on
the Court and withholding critical information about the settlement
from Ms. Tilmon (Docket Entry 49). This motion was again withdrawn
by Ms. Jones’ attorneys on January 4, 2011 (Docket Entry 60).

5

The matter reared its head yet again on November 1, 2011
(Docket Entry 69) under a new sealed motion to set aside the
consent order of settlement filed by Ms. Tilmon through her
attorneys.
Peterer,

This particular motion contained an affidavit of Ms.

which

made

a

number

of

serious

allegations

Bridgeport and its attorneys, including Mr. Busch.

against

This matter

underwent lengthy and contentious briefing until January 10, 2012,
when Judge O’Meara entered an opinion and order denying the motion
to reopen the case (Docket Entry 101).
It appears that as of the date of this Order that motions
for sanctions against Ms. Tilmon and her attorneys are still
pending before Judge O’Meara.
The third case presently pending in Michigan is Tilmon
Jones, et al. v. Bridgeport Music, et al., (E.D. Mich.) Case 5:11CV-13002, originally assigned to Judge Friedman and subsequently
transferred to Judge O’Meara.

This litigation, filed on June 13,

2011, by Ms. Tilmon with the assistance of her attorneys, alleges
in some 70 pages--with another 100 or so pages of exhibits--that
Bridgeport defrauded Ms. Tilmon her right to royalties to a large
number

of

songs

as

statutory

successor

to

Mr.

Tilmon.

The

royalties were allegedly assigned to Bridgeport originally, but
reverted to Ms. Tilmon as the statutory heir when the original
copyrights expired on December 31st of the 28th year from the date
the copyright was originally secured.

6

Copyright Act of 1976.

The complaint deals with “You’re Getting a Little Too
Smart” beginning at paragraph 295.

The complaint alleges that

Bridgeport secured a copyright of this song on March 20, 1974, and
thus Bridgeport’s rights would have terminated on December 31,
2002.
Before Judge Friedman transferred the case he held a
hearing concerning the sealing of the Peterer declaration which has
caused so much difficulty in these matters (Docket Entry 29).7

In

that hearing Judge Friedman specifically continued a seal on the
Peterer declaration and expressed concern with the way Ms. Tilmon’s
attorney, Mr. Reed, had handled the matter.

It appears that as of

the date of this Order the parties are still filing voluminous
pleadings in that case.
The 2003 and 2006 cases have resulted in orders by Judge
Borman and Judge O’Meara, respectively, to refuse to reopen the
litigation under any of the Plaintiff’s various theories.
In the seven Nashville cases the pleadings have roughly
tracked the various accusations and counter-accusations made in the
three Michigan cases.8

7

Docket Entry 158-2 in the Nashville case.

8

Because Judge Friedman in the 5:11-CV-1302 placed the Peterer
declaration under seal the Magistrate Judge will continue that
declaration under seal until such time as the Judge first placing
it under seal authorizes its release. Judge Friedman’s order and
the Peterer declaration are attached in the Deep Technology Music
case as Docket Entry 158-1 and 158-2.
7

On

November

1,

2011,

in

the

Nashville

cases,

the

Plaintiff used the Peterer declaration to allege additional grounds
for relief for fraud on the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3),
as well as sanctions against Bridgeport under 28 U.S.C. § 1927
(Docket Entries 158, 159, 160).
The parties have continued to brief the issues for
reopening and sanctions with motions which tend to intermingle the
two issues.

Unfortunately, this makes for heavy reading.

See

Docket Entries 152, 162, 164, 165, 166, 168, 172, and 186.9
Bridgeport

responded

to

Ms.

Tilmon’s

newly

alleged

grounds by which she seeks to reopen these cases or to take
discovery (Docket Entry 162).

In their surreply, they also filed

additional motions seeking fees against Ms. Tilmon (Docket Entry
164), which was supported by a lengthy memorandum (Docket Entry
165).

They filed additional motions for sanctions and assessment

of fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Docket Entry
166).

Ms. Tilmon filed a response to this motion for sanctions

(Docket Entry 172), and Bridgeport was granted permission to file
a reply (Docket Entry 186).

9

It appears that Ms. Tilmon did not send Bridgeport a copy of her
last response to their motion for sanctions (Docket Entry 172).
Bridgeport states that they only learned about the matter when they
actually checked the docket approximately 30 days later. Because many
of the pleadings in this matter are under seal, ECF notices do not
automatically go to the parties. Why Bridgeport waited 30 days to check
is unknown. The Magistrate Judge has ordered the parties to send all
further pleadings by means that generate proof of delivery.

8

The Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing in this matter
on February 28, 2012, when the parties were allowed to fully argue
their respective positions.

At the hearing, Ms. Tilmon stressed

that what she really wanted was an accounting of what settlements
or other dispositions Bridgeport made in the seven cases in
question.

If that is all she wanted she has taken a tortured and

confusing road.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Unfortunately, because of the accusations made in this
case the pleadings have spun out of control.

The Magistrate Judge

will take up at a later date the various motions for sanctions.
This Order will deal solely with the original issues, which are
whether or not there are grounds to reopen any of these seven
cases.
The Magistrate Judge fully agrees with Judge Borman’s
decision of September 27, 2011, denying reopening of the Michigan
case on similar grounds (Docket Entry 162-1), and his further order
denying reconsideration on December 12, 2011, attached as Docket
Entry 189-1, starting at page 59, and his last order declining to
reopen for fraud (Docket Entry 189-1 starting at page 65).10

10

For some reason Bridgeport filed this pleading and all its
attachments as a single 156-page document.
Frankly, there is a
temptation, which the undersigned probably should have taken, to simply
adopt Judge Borman’s well-written opinions and stop.
However, the
Magistrate Judge will address the matters in more detail as they relate
to the seven Nashville cases.

9

It is clear from the pleadings that Bridgeport was the
owner of the copyright to the song “You’re Getting a Little Too
Smart” when they filed these seven cases in 2001 despite Mr.
Tilmon’s unfortunate death on July 6, 1982.
The Magistrate Judge will first take up the points raised
in the first motion to reopen or allow discovery (Docket Entry
136).

Bridgeport responded with a memorandum arguing why this

should not be permitted (Docket Entry 139).
Bridgeport’s first argument is that there was no final
judgment in these cases to reopen.
argument is ludicrous.

With all due respect, this

The docket sheets in all of these cases

reflect that at the end of the case the District Judge entered an
order stating that the matter was closed with a final judgment.
Their other grounds have more merit.

Bridgeport clearly

owned the copyright in question when they brought this lawsuit in
2001. From the pleadings it appears that Mr. Tilmon’s heirs, which
include Ms. Tilmon and her children, gained a statutory right to
the copyright when the copyright came up for renewal 28 years after
it was originally filed.

It appears that the date for renewal

would have been either March 20, 2002, or December 31, 2002.

Ms.

Tilmon did, in fact, renew the copyrights in the name of the
statutory heirs on January 21, 2011 (Docket Entry 162-1, p. 12).
The

District

Court

clearly

had

subject

matter

jurisdiction in the Nashville lawsuits, which were brought by

10

Bridgeport as the copyright owner against individuals that it
contended infringed on the song “You’re Getting a Little Too
Smart.”

It appears that in 2006 Ms. Tilmon, individually and as a

representative of the estate of Mr. Tilmon, filed a complaint
against Mr. Boladian and Bridgeport Music (Docket Entry 139, Ex.
A).

According to Attachment A to Docket Entry 139-1, Item 21, one

of the songs sold to Bridgeport sold by Mr. Tilmon on March 31,1976
was “You’re Getting a Little Too Smart.”

The complaint includes a

description of the agreement entered into between Mr. Tilmon and
Bridgeport in March of 1976.
Subsequently, a consent order was entered on September 6,
2007, resolving that matter.

Part of the settlement included a

release in that litigation, which was filed as Docket Entry 139-4.
The Magistrate Judge has reviewed the release and also discussed
the release with the parties at the hearing.

It is the Magistrate

Judge’s view that this is a full and complete release by Ms. Tilmon
of

all

claims

which

she

had

against

Bridgeport

and

related

entities.
The third paragraph (Docket Entry 139-4, p. 3) states:
Whereas the ESTATE, TILMON-JONES, AND HEIRS voluntarily
and with full knowledge of their rights and the
provisions herein, now desire to settle, compromise and
dispose of the District Court Action claims; and any and
all other claims they have or might have against
COMPANIES including, but not limited to, any claims that
may arise in the future pursuant to any newly discovered
facts which are not yet known to the ESTATE, TILMON-JONES
and HAIRS.

11

The release continues at Docket Entry 139-4, p. 4 to
state:
5.
TILMON-JONES, ESTATE AND HEIRS hereby release and
forever discharge Armen Boladian, individually, and
Bridgeport as well as their officers, directors,
employees, attorneys, other agents, successors and
assigns, privies in contract, from all debts,, demands,
actions, causes of action, charges, complaints,
judgments, suits, warranties, covenants, contracts,
promises, obligations, liabilities, or claims of any
kind, type, or description, whether now known, disputed
or undisputed, accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or
contingent, foreseen or unforeseen, asserted or
unasserted, filed or not yet filed, in contract, tort,
at law, or in equity, or before any local, state or
federal court, administrative agencies or departments,
existing at the time of this Agreement, of which
subsequently may exist or arise following the execution
of this Agreement, that could have been brought by
TILMON-JONES, ESTATE and HEIRS pertaining to the causes
of action contained in the District Court Action for
which this Agreement pertains.
Ms. Tilmon points to the discussion before Magistrate
Judge Majvoud in Michigan on September 4, 2007, to show that she
was only releasing two songs: “Feel the Need in Me” and “Yes, I
Know I’m in Love” (Docket Entry 160-4, pp. 10, 11).11
The Magistrate Judge, however, believes that this is a
full and complete release of Bridgeport for any and all claims
that could have been brought as the result of the Michigan
litigation.

The fact that this particular litigation refers to

some 37 songs for which Mr. Tilmon sold his rights on March 31,
1976, shows that at that point Ms. Tilmon was aware, or should

11

Wherever possible the Magistrate Judge will use the page numbers
assigned by the ECF system to refer to documents.

12

have been aware, of the fact that Bridgeport had at that time
acquired ownership in these songs.12
Given that the song “You’re Getting a Little Too Smart”
is specifically mentioned at Docket Entry 139-1, p. 12, it clearly
is a song that was known at the time and could have been the
subject of that litigation had Ms. Tilmon decided to do so.

The

Magistrate Judge concludes that the release is effective to all
songs.
Even

if

the

release

was

not

fully

operable,

the

Magistrate Judge believes that there is also an issue of res
judicata or claims preclusion.

Ms. Tilmon had a full opportunity

to litigate the claims concerning “You’re Getting a Little Too
Smart” at that time, but for whatever reason, chose not to do so.
As Bridgeport points out in its memorandum (Docket Entry 139, p.
10), Bridgeport filed a renewal notice of the song “You’re Getting
a Little Too Smart” on behalf of Tilmon on February 18, 2004, at
the same time as new registrations were filed for the two songs
that were the primary focus of the Michigan litigation.

Had Ms.

Tilmon exercised reasonable diligence, these matters would and
should have been raised in 2006 when the parties were settling all
issues and disputes between themselves.

Ms. Tilmon was certainly

represented by counsel at that point.

12

As previously mentioned, because of the death of Mr. Tilmon,
Bridgeport lost the right to renew in their name after 28 years when that
right passed to the statutory heirs of Mr. Tilmon.

13

Matters filed with the copyright office are public
records, and constructive notice to the public of the facts stated
in the recorded documents is presumed.

17 U.S.C. § 205(c).

To

allow this matter to be raised at this late date encourages
parties to attempt to repeatedly raise matters that should be
settled in a single lawsuit.

Hadley v. Imnon, 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXUS 3370 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 18, 2006).
Additionally, the Magistrate Judge believes that this
motion is untimely.

The District Court entered its final judgment

on June 15, 2005 (Docket Entry 15).13

It appears that Ms. Tilmon

knew, or certainly should have known, as a result of her 2006
complaint that there were possible problems with the songs in
question in these seven cases.

Her attorney, who appears to be an

experienced copyright attorney, could not have been unaware of the
Tennessee Bridgeport litigation given its widespread publicity in
the music industry, as well as numerous opinions by the Sixth
Circuit dealing with a number of critical copyright issues.

This

motion is over six years after the final order and over five years
after the filing of the Michigan litigation.

The Magistrate Judge

can only conclude that the motion is untimely.

Relief under Rule

60(b) must be brought within a reasonable time.

U.S. v. Dailide,

316 F.3d 611 617-618 (6th Cir. 2003).

13

The District Court did allow some additional time for parties to
complete certain settlement options. However, Docket Entry 115 states
unequivocally that the order shall constitute final judgment.

14

The Magistrate Judge will now turn to the second motion
by Ms. Tilmon (Docket Entry 159).

Fraud on the Court based on the

Peterer declaration. This motion is accompanied by a memorandum
(Docket Entry 160). Ms. Tilmon repeats many of the arguments she
previously made, but she adds a new argument that Ms. Peterer’s
declaration establishes that Bridgeport perpetrated a fraud on the
Court by concealing documents from the Court and that Bridgeport
and

their

attorneys

misrepresented

facts.

Ms.

Peterer’s

declaration does nothing to establish that Bridgeport did not own
copyrights to “You’re Getting a Little Too Smart” when they filed
their litigation.

It does nothing to establish that Ms. Tilmon

should not have raised these issues when she filed suit on two
other songs in 2006.
In the most recent volley filed

in this seemingly

endless litigation, Bridgeport has filed a reply to Ms. Tilmon’s
claims of fraud (Docket Entry 189).

Leaving aside the argument

concerning the issue of sanctions against Ms. Tilmon and perhaps
others, the Magistrate Judge believes that Ms. Tilmon has not made
a sufficient showing of fraud on the Court to justify reopening
under Rule 60(d)(3). Bridgeport attached to their motion (Docket

15

Entry 189-1) copies of the orders issued in the Michigan cases.14

Judge Borman’s three very well-reasoned opinions address
all issues raised in the Nashville case.
Entry 189-1, pages 49, 59, and 65.

They are found at Docket

He first held Ms. Tilmon had

not made out a prima facie case showing that she was entitled to
discovery and, therefore, declined to grant her relief to reopen
the 2003 Michigan case.

Ths Magistrate Judge sees no substantial

difference between her request to reopen in that matter and her
request to reopen in this matter and adopts the reasoning of Judge
Borman (Docket Entry 189-1, p. 49).
Following a motion for reconsideration of his order of
denial, Judge Borman reiterates a number of reasons why his
original September 27, 2011, order was correct and again declined
to reopen the matter (Docket Entry 189-1, p. 59).
In his most recent opinion and order (Docket Entry 1891, p. 65), Judge Borman notes that Ms. Tilmon, through her
Michigan attorney, again attempted to reopen the 2003 Michigan
litigation

on

fraud

grounds.

That

case,

Bridgeport Music v.

Raasham A. Smith, Civil Action 2:03-CV-72211, involved the exact
14

In filing this Docket Entry 189-1, Bridgeport listed 156 pages
worth of pleadings and arguments without breaking them down separately.
It has been extremely frustrating to the Magistrate Judge in trying to
locate and refer to particular documents within this 156 pages.
The
Magistrate Judge will, however, use the page numbers assigned by ECF to
Docket Entry 189-1 for the convenience of everyone who has to read this.
The pleadings in the 2003 Michigan case are substantially similar to the
pleadings in the various Bridgeport cases filed in 2001 in Nashville.

16

song involved in the Nashville cases, “You’re Getting a Little Too
Smart.”

Judge

Borman

related

pleadings

at

discussed
some

length

the
and

Peterer
again,

declaration
for

and

well-stated

reasons, denied the motion to reopen on the grounds of fraud.
The

Magistrate

Judge

adopts

the

reasoning

ruling, which begins in Docket Entry 189-1, p. 65.

of

this

In particular,

Judge Borman found that the Peterer declaration was insufficient
to show fraud or to justify reopening the case on those grounds.
He points out specifically that Ms. Peterer in May of 2003
confirmed to Bridgeport that they could claim complete ownership
of “You’re Getting a Little Too Smart” (Docket Entry 189-1, p.
70).
In short, the Magistrate Judge believes that all efforts
by Ms. Tilmon to reopen these cases under any theory are without
merit and should be DENIED.
The Magistrate Judge is concerned that the pleadings in
this case appear to be ghost-written by attorneys who have not
made an appearance.

At the hearing before the Magistrate Judge,

Ms. Tilmon explained that the attorneys stated to her that they
were not licensed in Tennessee and, therefore, could not appear
here.

The Magistrate Judge pointed out to Ms. Tilmon that it was

a simple matter for her attorneys to file a motion to be admitted
pro hoc vice, pay a $75 fee and associate local counsel.

17

It appears that there are sanction motions pending
before Judge Borman later this month against one or more of the
attorneys involved in the Michigan litigation, and that Judge
O’Meara may also consider sanctions.

Whether it is sanctionable

in this district or not, the practice of attorneys ghost-writing
pleadings potentially raises serious ethical issues, which the
Magistrate Judge does not feel the necessity to address in this
Order.
For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge
DENIES the pending motions to reopen these seven cases:
Case Nos.

Deep Technology
EMI April
Careers-BMG
EMI Blackwood
Careers-BMG
Elektra
Remedi

Docket
Entries
Aug. 25, 2011

136
30
30
129
74
43
12

3:01-0718
3:01-0733
3:01-0935
3:01-0971
3:01-1037
3:01-1105
3:01-1156

Docket
Entries
Nov. 1, 2011

159
52
52
145
95
62
31

Ms. Tilmon is reminded that she may appeal this decision
to the District Judge no later than fourteen (14) days after the
entry of this Order.
ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2012.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

18