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

Filing 238

ORDER granting 235 Motion for judicial notice and request for ruling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 5/30/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

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

O R D E R
The Plaintiffs in this matter have filed a motion for
judicial notice and a request for ruling (Docket Entry 235, April
12, 2013). This motion is GRANTED and the Magistrate Judge will
take judicial notice of orders filed in Michigan cases.
The

Magistrate

Judge

will

also

take

notice

of

the

decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Docket 12-153 in
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Smith, filed May 1, 2013. In this
decision the Sixth Circuit affirmed the rulings of District Judge
Paul D. Borman and held that Janyce Tilmon-Jones’ (Tilmon-Jones)
effort to reopen litigation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) were
without merit and that her appeal from that decision was without
merit because her original motion to reopen under Rule 60 was

untimely and barred by a release. The Sixth Circuit, upon finding
the appeal was frivolous, awarded sanctions. In footnote 4 the
Sixth Circuit succinctly set out the history of the litigation by
Tilmon-Jones in Michigan and in Tennessee. As the Sixth Circuit
noted in that footnote the grounds cited by the undersigned for
denying

her

Rule

60

motion

in

the

Tennessee

litigation

was

substantially the same as those before Judge Borman in Michigan.
The

Magistrate

Judge

does

find

that

sanctions

are

justified in this case against Tilmon-Jones. The Plaintiffs have
submitted a claim for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $76,540.50
plus $1,783.77 in costs (Docket Entries 211 and 211-1). In TilmonJones’ response to this billing statement (Docket Entry 214)
Tilmon-Jones

requested

permission

to

file

a

response

to

the

affidavit of Richard Bush in order to contest the reasonableness of
his billing record. Ms. Tilmon-Jones may do so within 21 days of
the entry of

this

sanctions

Magistrate Judge is considering.

the

order

along

with

any

argument

about

At the present time the Magistrate Judge is considering
the awarding of $1,783.77 as expenses and $50,000 in attorneys’
fees for all motions in all cases. The Magistrate Judge believes
that this is a sufficient sanction under Rule 11, as well as 28
U.S.C. § 1927 to punish and deter such conduct by Tilmon-Jones.
The Magistrate Judge is satisfied that the hourly billing
rates claimed by Plaintiffs’ law firm in this matter are within the
reasonable rates in the Nashville area. The issue of how much time
is reasonable to expend in defending this case and how much of
2

those efforts are duplicated because of substantially similar
pleadings in the Michigan cases from a practical standpoint is
difficult to resolve from a examination of over 180 pages of
billing records contained in Docket Entry 211-1.
The Magistrate Judge believes that Plaintiffs’ counsel
passed up several opportunities to simplify this procedure and has
filed some pleadings, which were excessive to the needs of the
case. Nevertheless, for the reasons the Magistrate Judge has stated
in previous orders, as well as for the reasons stated by the
Michigan judges and the Court of Appeals, the Magistrate Judge is
satisfied that Tilmon-Jones’ efforts to intervene in the Nashville
cases was ill-founded and without merit and that in the language of
28 U.S.C. § 1927 multiplied the proceedings in this unreasonably
and vexatiously. Accordingly, Tilmon-Jones may be required to
personally satisfy the excess costs and expenses and attorneys’
fees reasonable occurred because of such conduct.1

Even though

Tilmon-Jones may have been ill-served by attorneys in Michigan she
signed the pleading in this case and under Rule 11 is fully
responsible for their contents. Whether she might have any recourse
against the attorney advising her is not before this Court.
Since Plaintiffs’ counsel at times wishes to pick up hot
horseshoes, the Magistrate Judge does not want any reply by the

1

It is apparent to the Magistrate Judge that one or more attorneys
are ghost writing the Tilmon-Jones pleadings. Docket Entry 214 is clearly
not the product of Tilmon-Jones as the Plaintiffs point out in their
response (Docket Entry 228). To the extent Ms. Tilmon-Jones wishes to
file a response, she should clearly identify by name any attorney who
helps her prepare such a response.

3

Plaintiffs to any response Tilmon-Jones files without the express
request of the Magistrate Judge.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

4