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

Filing 254

ORDER: Presently pending in these seven cases is the Plaintiffs' motion for a final order on sanctions (Docket Entry 241 ). Also pending is the Plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice of proceedings in the Sixth Circuit in related litigati on from Michigan (Docket Entry 243 ). This motion for judicial notice is GRANTED. The motion for sanctions (Docket Entry 241) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part granting in part and denying in part. After considering all of this, the Magistrate J udge believes that the motion for sanctions should be GRANTED as follows: Expenses are allowed in the amount of $1,053.23, and attorneys' fees are allowed in the amount of $45,000. Sanction for all seven cases are awarded as follows: costs in the amount of $1,053.23, and attorneys' fees in the amount of $45,000. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 9/10/13. (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
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
Presently pending in these seven cases is the Plaintiffs’
motion for a final order on sanctions (Docket Entry 241). Also
pending

is

proceedings

the
in

Plaintiffs’
the

Sixth

motion

Circuit

in

for

judicial

related

notice

litigation

of
from

Michigan (Docket Entry 243). This motion for judicial notice is
GRANTED. The motion for sanctions (Docket Entry 241) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
Turning now to the motion for sanctions, the Magistrate
Judge has reviewed the pleadings in the matter, including the
corrected response by Ms. Tilmon Jones (Docket Entry 253), and the
reply by the Plaintiffs to the original unsigned response (Docket
Entry 248).

As

previously

stated,

the

Magistrate

Judge

was

considering sanctions in the amount of $1,783.77 and attorneys’
fees in the amount of $50,000 as a sanction and in satisfaction of
all such requests filed by the Plaintiff (Docket Entries 238, 244).
Ms. Tilmon Jones, in her response (Docket Entry 248, 252), makes
several specific points, which the Magistrate will address.
The Plaintiffs correctly note that under 28 U.S.C. § 1927
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, the Courts should normally impose the least
severe sanctions to serve the purpose of the respective provisions.
Jackson v. Law Firm of O’Hara, Ruberg, Osborne and Taylor, 875 F.2d
1224, 1229 (6th Cir. 1989). She also points out that Judge O’Mara
reduced

the

amount

of

requested

sanctions

from

approximately

$150,00 to $20,000.
Ms. Tilmon Jones also makes the point that she is a 67year old widow with little or no resources. Unfortunately, other
than her statement, there is no objective evidence concerning her
inability to pay sanctions. There are no tax returns, no financial
statements,

nothing

that

allows

the

Magistrate

Judge

as

an

objective matter to determine her financial status. It is apparent
that she did receive a substantial settlement several years ago as
a result of Michigan litigation, which has been extensively cited
in these proceedings. How much of that, if anything, remains at
this point is unknown.
Ms. Tilmon Jones makes the point that some of the billing
records could provide more detail and should be disregarded. The
Magistrate Judge has taken into account the fact that he believes

2

some of the billing is a result of over-lawyering the case and has
substantially reduced the original claim.
Ms. Tilmon Jones has not presented any evidence that the
billing rate for attorney time is inappropriate and the Magistrate
Judge stands by his earlier finding that the hourly rates claimed
by the Plaintiffs’ counsel in this matter are well within the
Nashville area standards.
Ms. Tilmon Jones complains she was billed for copying and
computer research, among other matters. Ms. Tilmon Jones contends
that the computer research should be disallowed and it should be
included in the attorney’s hourly rate.
Computerized research is somewhat of a two-edged sword.
While the research itself is an additional cost, it generally
reduces the time the attorney would otherwise spend doing research
in an actual library. In fact, in many cases, research in the
library would be more expensive using an hourly rate than research
through West Law or LEXIS. Nevertheless, the Magistrate Judge will
give the Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt on this matter and
reduce the expenses by a total of $730.54. Thus, expenses are
reduced to $1,053.23.
Finally, Ms. Tilmon Jones argues she has been deterred
from filing any further litigation in this matter and asks the
Court to consider whether sanctions on her would impose a deterrent
effect on other copyright owners.
The

Magistrate

Judge

is

satisfied

Ms.

Tilmon

Jones

received terrible advice from various attorneys, nevertheless she

3

chose to proceed on her own in this case and must bear the
consequences. Those attorneys are not before this Court.
The Plaintiffs filed a rather detailed reply reiterating
why they should be allowed the full amount of their claim.1 After
considering all of this, the Magistrate Judge believes that the
motion for sanctions should be GRANTED as follows: Expenses are
allowed in the amount of $1,053.23, and attorneys’ fees are allowed
in the amount of $45,000.
In determining this amount the Magistrate has considered
what he believes is some overwork of the case, the fact that Ms.
Tilmon Jones and her counsel have been substantially sanctioned as
a result of the various Michigan litigations, and that while Ms.
Tilmon Jones has not made a detailed explanation of her financial
status,

the

Court

must

nevertheless,

in

imposing

sanctions,

consider not only the actual cost to the Plaintiffs in this matter,
in defending Ms. Tilmon Jones’s ill-founded efforts to reopen these
cases, but also what is a reasonable amount to both punish and
deter her. Her conduct in filing these cases, including the illfounded allegations against counsel for the Plaintiffs, cannot be
ignored. As the Magistrate Judge has noted before, there was no
legal basis for attempting to reopen these cases.
The Magistrate Judge has been involved with these cases
since they were filed in 2001. Hopefully this will be the end of
them. Sanction for all seven cases are awarded as follows: costs in

1

The reply was limited to five pages. Plaintiff filed a longer
pleading, although the actual meat was under five pages.

4

the amount of $1,053.23, and attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$45,000.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

5