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

Filing 244

ORDER: In these seven cases the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that he was considering sanctions in the amount of $1,783.77 in costs and attorneys' fees in the amount of $50,000.00 as a sanction in satisfaction of all motions for sanctions filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff may have until August 12, 2013, to file any response objecting to the amount claimed. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/18/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
BRIDGEPORT MUSIC, INC., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
DEEP TECHNOLOGY MUSIC, et al., )
)
EMI APRIL MUSIC, INC., et al., )
)
CAREERS-BMG PUBLISHING, INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
EMI BLACKWOOD MUSIC, INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
CAREERS-BMG PUBLISHING, INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT, et al., )
)
REMEDI MUSIC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

NO.

3:01-0718

Judge Campbell/Brown

NO. 3:01-0733
NO. 3:01-0935
NO. 3:01-0971
NO. 3:01-1037
NO. 3:01-1105
NO. 3:01-1156

O R D E R
In these seven cases the Magistrate Judge advised the
parties

that

he

was

considering

sanctions

in

the

amount

of

$1,783.77 in costs and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $50,000.00
as a sanction in satisfaction of all motions for sanctions filed by
the plaintiffs.
The Magistrate Judge in his order (Docket Entry No. 238)
set forth his reasons for the imposing these sanctions and offered
the intervenor, Ms. Tilmon-Jones, an opportunity to respond before
entering a final sanction order. Ms. Tilmon-Jones filed a response
(Docket Entry No. 242) along with a request to receive the full
Docket Entry No. 211-1.

In her motion, Mr. Tilmon-Jones states

that she only received the first eight pages of Docket Entry No.
211-1.

She requests additional time to respond after she reviews

these records.

The Magistrate Judge is puzzled why the plaintiff waited
until the last day to point out that she did not have all of Docket
Entry No. 211-1.

An examination of the docket sheet shows that

plaintiffs’ counsel filed as Docket Entry No. 211-1 some 181 pages
on October 30, 2012. This material could have easily been accessed
by the plaintiff or by the attorney she is consulting at any time
on PACER.
At this point the Magistrate Judge has no way of knowing
whether plaintiffs’ counsel failed to include all the pages of
Docket Entry No. 211-1 or not.

Out of an abundance of caution,

plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to send Ms. Tilmon-Jones a copy of
Docket Entry No. 211-1 and file a notice with the Court the date
such documents are delivered to an appropriate delivery service.
The plaintiff may have until August 12, 2013, to file any
response objecting to the amount claimed.

Ms. Tilmon-Jones,

however, should keep in mind that is the Magistrate Judge’s stated
intent to reduce the amount to $50,000 to take into account what
the Magistrate Judge considers overwork of the case.
The Magistrate Judge, however, sees no reason to change
his view that sanctions are appropriate for the reasons previously
stated by the Magistrate Judge, the courts in Michigan, as well as
the Sixth Circuit, which have been cited in this matter.
Once Ms. Tilmon-Jones has filed any objections to the
amount intended to be awarded as costs and fees, plaintiffs’
counsel may have seven (7) days within which to file a response not
to exceed five (5) pages.

2

It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3