Zander et al v. Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLP et al

Filing 177

ORDER: The 162 Motion to file a reply is DENIED. Out of an abundance of caution, 172 will be placed under seal. The motion 175 is GRANTED to that extent. Motion for oral argument in the matter 174 is GRANTED and the matter is set for oral argument on Thursday, June 5, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., Courtroom 783. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 6/3/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JEFFREY J. ZANDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
KATZ, SAPPER & MILLER, LLP,
et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-0967
Judge Sharp/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
Presently pending are a number of motions in this case.
There are cross-motions for summary judgment (Docket Entries 69 and
71), which appear to be fully briefed. There is a motion to strike
certain disclosures (Docket Entry 88), which appears to be fully
briefed; a motion for partial summary judgment (Docket Entry 97) by
KSM Business Services, which appears to be fully briefed; a motion
to strike declarations of Mr. Faughnan (Docket Entry 144), which
appears to be fully briefed; a motion in limine to limit the
testimony or Richard Betts (Docket Entry 165); a motion in limine
to strike the Plaintiffs’ expert Larry Sacks (Docket Entry 169);
and a motion in limine to prohibit the testimony or references to
some items at trial (Docket Entry 176). All of these motions are
dispositive and are before the District Judge.
This case is presently set for a jury trial to begin July
1, 2014, with a final pretrial conference set for June 23, 2014
(Docket Entry 170).

Presently before the Magistrate Judge is the motion by
the Defendants to supplement the report of their expert, Mr. Brown
(Docket Entry 162). The Defendants have now filed a motion for
leave to file a reply (Docket Entry 173). The Magistrate Judge
would note with some irony that the motion to file a reply is six
pages long and it proposes a five page reply and does not attach a
copy of the proposed reply. The Magistrate Judge is not about to
buy a pig in a poke. The Defendants should have filed a short
motion for permission to file a reply, along with a copy of the
reply. They have, in effect, tried to take two bites at the apple
by filing a six page request, which goes into a good amount of
detail about what the reply would contain without actually filing
the reply and, in addition to the six pages, they now want to file
a five page reply. The motion to file a reply is DENIED.
The Defendants have filed a motion (Docket Entry 175) to
strike

the

Plaintiffs’

reference

to

settlement

negotiations

contained in Docket Entry 172. The Magistrate Judge does not see
that the references are particularly detailed. However, out of an
abundance of caution, Docket Entry 172 will be placed under seal.
The motion (Docket Entry 175) is GRANTED to that extent.
Finally, there is a motion for oral argument in the
matter (Docket Entry 174). This motion is GRANTED and the matter is
set for oral argument on Thursday, June 5, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.,
Courtroom 783. The parties are advised that the Magistrate Judge
considers that this motion is governed by the good cause shown

2

requirements of Rule 16, rather than the freely given in the
interest of justice provisions of Rule 15. The Magistrate Judge is
also concerned that granting this motion could affect the trial
date. The parties should therefore be prepared to argue what would
need

to

be

accomplished

should

the

Magistrate

Judge

grant

permission to supplement Mr. Brown’s report.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3