Tennessee Football, Inc. v. Kiffin
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: The parties shall serve their initial disclosures by 9/28/10. All fact depositions shall be completed by 3/15/11. Dispositive motions shall be filed by 4/5/11. A jury trial is set for 9:00 a.m. on 8/2/2011 in Courtroom 774 before Senior Judge John T. Nixon. The pretrial conference is set for 10:00 a.m. on 7/22/11. A telephone conference is set for 1:30 p.m. on 1/18/2011 before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 9/14/10. (rd)
Tennessee Football, Inc. v. Kiffin
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION TENNESSEE FOOTBALL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) LANE MONTE KIFFIN, individually ) and in his capacity as agent ) for UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN ) CALIFORNIA; and UNIVERSITY ) OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ) ) Defendants )
Case 3:10-0727 Judge Nixon/Brown Jury Demand
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01, the following Initial Case Management Plan is adopted. 1. disputed. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction and Venue are not
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332. 2. Plaintiff's Theory of the Case: Plaintiff Tennessee
Football, Inc. (Tennessee Football), entered into an enforceable written contract of employment with Kennedy Pola, a football coach, in which Mr. Pola agreed to be employed by it until February 14, 2011. Mr. Kiffin, in his individual capacity and as agent of USC,
in accordance with a pattern and practice, and with full knowledge of Mr. Pola's contract, maliciously inducted Mr. Pola to breach it one week before the start of Tennessee Football's season training camp so that he could become employed by USC as its football program's offensive coordinator. Mr. Kiffin's actions were with
the full knowledge and approval of USC's athletics department, and
violate both Tennessee's statutory and common law prohibition against inducement of breach of contract. Tennessee Football is
entitled to compensatory, statutory and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants' actions. 3. Defendants' Theory of the Case: As set forth in
their Answer, Defendants deny Tennessee Football's allegations and claims and deny that Tennessee Football has a legally cognizable claim or is entitled to any damages. Defendants submit that the
Court should dismiss the case and award Defendants all appropriate relief. 4. Identification of the Issues: No issues have been
resolved, other than jurisdiction and venue. 5. Need for Other claims or Special Issues Under Rule
13-15, 17-21, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: At this time the parties do not anticipate any other claims or special issues arising under these rules. 6. of persons Witnesses: The parties shall disclose the identities with discoverable information in their initial
disclosures in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). 7. Initial Disclosures and Staging of Discovery: (a) Initial Disclosures. The parties shall serve
their initial disclosures on or before September 28, 2010. (b) Written Discovery. In accordance with this
Court's lifting the stay of discovery on August 17, 2010, both
parties served written discovery in this case.
written discovery on Defendants on August 13, 2010, and Defendants responded to such written discovery on September 13, 2010.
Defendants served written discovery on Plaintiff on August 20, 2010, and Plaintiff shall respond to such written discovery no later than September 20, 2010. Both parties have served subpoenas Interrogatories
for the production of documents on third parties.
to each party shall be limited to 35, including subparts. (c) Fact Depositions. All fact depositions shall
be completed no later than March 15, 2011. (d) Expert Witness Disclosures. The party having
the burden on an issue will make their expert witness disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) no later than February 1, 2011. Opposing side shall provide their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) expert witness disclosures no later than February 22, 2011. Expert
witness depositions shall be completed no later than March 15, 2011. Prior to filing any discovery-related motion, the parties shall schedule and conduct a telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Brown. The counsel requesting the conference shall check
with opposing counsel as to their availability before setting a time certain with the Court. 8. Dispositive Motions: Dispositive motions shall be
filed no later than April 5, 2011. Responses shall be filed within
Replies shall be filed no later than seven days after the
response. If dispositive motions are filed early, the response and reply dates shall be moved up accordingly. The motion and response are limited to 25 pages and the reply is limited to five pages, absent Court permission for longer pleading. The parties may request oral argument on any dispositive motion once they are filed. 9. Consent to Trial by the Magistrate Judge: The
parties do not consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge. 10. Trial Date: Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial, the
estimated length of which will be approximately three to four days, depending on what issues remain for trial. After consulting with
Judge Nixon's courtroom deputy, this matter is set for trial on August 2, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. Judge Nixon will conduct the final Judge Nixon
pretrial conference on July 22, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.
will issue a separate order covering his requirements for the final pretrial conference and the trial. 11. Subsequent Case Management Conference: A telephone
conference with Magistrate Judge Brown to discuss case progress is set for Tuesday, January 18, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. To participate in
the conference call, parties shall call 615-695-2851 at 1:30 p.m. 12. Electronic Discovery: The parties have reached an Thus, the
agreement on how to conduct electronic discovery.
default standard contained in Administrative Order 174 need not apply in this case. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Joe B. Brown JOE B. BROWN United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?