Taylor Swift v. Malcolm Matthews, et al

Filing 34

PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER filed by Taylor Swift. (Rose, Natalya) Modified text on 6/25/2009 (ab).

Taylor Swift v. Malcolm Matthews, et al

Doc. 34

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE IN NASHVILLE

TAYLOR SWIFT, Plaintiff v. MALCOLM MATTHEWS, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 3:09-0442 Judge Wiseman Magistrate Judge Griffin FILED UNDER SEAL

PROPOSED INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Plaintiff Taylor Swift ("Plaintiff"), by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully proposes, in accordance with Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16(d), the following Initial Case Management Order. Plaintiff's counsel was not able to confer and cooperate with the counsel for Defendants as required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16(b) because no Defendants or counsel for Defendants have entered an appearance in the case. 1. Status of Service of Process. Defendant Martin D. Quattlebaum was served with process on May 27, 2009. Personal service was attempted on Defendants Matthews, Mitchell and Moore on May 26, 2009, Defendant Mitchell on May 27, 2009, and Defendant Tyler on May 26 and May 27, 2009. Service on Defendants Matthews, Mitchell, Moore and Tyler, and Defendants Schiff, Lieberman, Friedman, Estronza, Johnson and Wallace was made on June 22, 2009, by mail, in

1

Dockets.Justia.com

accordance with Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 4.05(a) and 4.04(10) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Status of Responsive Pleadings. No Defendant has filed a responsive pleading. 3. Jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a), as a civil action arising under the trademark laws of the United States; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), as a civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition joined with a substantial and related claim under the trademark laws of the United States; and under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction. 4. Plaintiff's Theory of the Case. Plaintiff, Taylor Swift, is an internationally-recognized and immensely popular recording and performing musical artist. Earlier this year, Plaintiff announced her first headlining tour, titled "Fearless Tour" ("Fearless Tour"); the tour is scheduled to reach fifty-six cities, in thirtyfive states, within the United States, and will extend abroad, to Canada and United Kingdom. In addition to Fearless Tour, Plaintiff will also give live performances during 2009 with the musical artists Keith Urban and Kenny Chesney and at a number of fairs and festivals (Plaintiff's performances during 2009, collectively, "Plaintiff's 2009 Tour"). In conjunction with her live performances to-date during 2009, as well as during her prior concert tours, merchandise bearing Plaintiff's trademarks TAYLOR SWIFT, in word and/or stylized forms, and/or the trademark FEARLESS ("Plaintiff's Trademarks"), and/or Plaintiff's photograph, image or likeness ("Taylor Swift Merchandise") has been made available for purchase to the public, by Plaintiff and her authorized vendors. Despite Plaintiff's past diligent efforts to prevent and actively

2

pursue sale of merchandise marked with imitations or counterfeits of Plaintiff's Trademarks ("Counterfeit Goods"), Counterfeit Goods have appeared during Plaintiff's past live performances, including during Plaintiff's 2009 Tour, as recently as on June 13, 2009, at or near the concert venues. The named Defendants are individuals who were encountered by Plaintiff's merchandise enforcement team, and identified through its efforts, as offering and selling Counterfeit Goods during Plaintiff's 2009 Tour. In addition to the named Defendants, there were numerous

individuals distributing, selling and offering for sale Counterfeit Goods at these concert venues who refused to furnish identification to Plaintiff's team or otherwise evaded Plaintiff's anticounterfeit ing enforcement efforts. These individuals and other similarly-situated individuals and entities, whose true names, capacities and addresses are not yet known to Plaintiff, are identified by Plaintiff in its Complaint as Various John Does, Various Jane Does and Various XYZ Corporations. Counterfeit Goods are of the same general nature and type as genuine and authorized Taylor Swift Merchandise, and typically include or feature Plaintiff's image, photographs or likeness. However, the design, materials and quality of most Counterfeit Goods are of inferior quality, fail to comply with the quality and style standards established by Plaintiff for Taylor Swift Merchandise, and are lower in price than authentic Taylor Swift Merchandise. Defendants' actions have resulted in use of counterfeits of Plaintiff's Trademarks, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, common law unfair competition, violation of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and violation of Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act.

3

5.

Issues Resolved.

The Court has granted Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary

Injunction and Application for Order of Seizure of Counterfeit Goods, resolving the claim for preliminary injunctive relief and order of seizure of counterfeit goods. 6. 7. Unresolved Issues. Liability and damages. Need for Other Claims or Parties. Additional defendants, presently identified

by Plaintiff in its Complaint as Various John Does, Various Jane Does and Various XYZ Corporations, are expected to become parties to the action. 8. Limitations on Discovery. Discovery should be stayed, pursuant to Local Rule

16(e)(1), until such the time when all of the Defendants have been identified. 9. Schedule of Initial Disclosures. All parties must make their initial disclosures

within 30 days after the initial case management conference. A party that is first served or otherwise joined after the initial case management conference must make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined. 10. Target Trial Date. The target trial date shall be set at a subsequent case

management conference and order. 11. Subsequent Case Management Conferences. A follow-up case management ______ , at . Counsel for

conference by telephone is set for Plaintiff shall initiate this call. It is so ORDERED.

____________________________________ JULIET GRIFFIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

APPROVED FOR ENTRY: /s/ Natalya L. Rose W. Michael Milom (No. 002803) David S. Crow (No. 020699) Natalya L. Rose (No. 021701) MILOM JOYCE HORSNELL CROW PLC 3310 West End Avenue, Suite 610 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff Taylor Swift

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing Proposed Case Management Order is being accomplished through delivery by U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, this 24 th day of June, 2009, upon the following: Malcolm Matthews 3234 Hunter Drive Orangeburg, South Carolina 29115 Renee Susan Mitchell 2775 NE Expressway, Apartment 53 Atlanta, Georgia 30345 Louis Moore 705 Mermaid Avenue Norfolk, Virginia 23510 Martin D. Quattlebaum 8556 Kendrick Road Jonesboro, Georgia 30126 Marsha Dyonne Tyler 103 Booker Street Baytown, Texas 77523 Melissa Liberman P.O. Box 279872 Thousand Oaks, CA 93294 Brendan Schiff 497 East California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91105 Taief Hasson Wallace 3600 Clubhouse Cir. Decatur, GA 30032 Edward Friedman 650 N. Crescent Heights Los Angeles, CA 90048 Kenneth Johnson 3715 Ramsey Circle Atlanta, GA 30331 Robert Vincent Estronza 1281 Brockett Road Clarkston, GA 30021

/s/ Natalya L. Rose Natalya L. Rose

6