Private Lenders Group, Inc. v. Does 1-29

Filing 13

ORDER: MOTION to Continue Initial Case Management Conference 5 is DENIED as moot. Next is a motion for leave to take discovery 9 which has now been refiled in accordance with the Courts EM/ECF rules as Docket Entry No. 11 . This motion is GRANT ED and the Magistrate Judge will enter a separate order concerning this matter. Initial Case Management Conference is reset for 6/24/2013 at 1:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 4/18/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
PRIVATE LENDERS GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-29,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:13-0159
Judge Sharp/Brown

O R D E R
Presently pending are two motions in this matter. Docket
Entry No. 5 is a motion to continue the initial case management
conference.

This motion is DENIED as moot.

The record shows that

this motion was filed at 4:38 p.m. on April 15, 2013, some six
hours after the scheduled hearing and after the Magistrate Judge’s
show cause order.

Filing a motion to continue a hearing after it

has been missed is locking the barn door after the horse is gone
and a waste of time.
Next is a motion for leave to take discovery (Docket
Entry No. 9) which has now been refiled in accordance with the
Court’s EM/ECF rules as Docket Entry No. 11. This motion is GRANTED
and the Magistrate Judge will enter a separate order concerning
this matter.
Finally, the plaintiff has responded to the Court’s show
cause order as to why plaintiff’s counsel failed to show up for a
scheduled case management conference.

Plaintiff has filed a three-page response to this order,
most of which is totally unnecessary.

Counsel should certainly be

aware that the Magistrate Judge read their complaint in preparing
for the hearing and does not need any additional explanation of its
content.

This is an complaint against Does 1-29 and the plaintiff

will have to take discovery in order to identify the potential
defendants.
What the Magistrate Judge does not understand is since
the

plaintiffs

had

as

of

February

27,

2013,

the

detailed

declaration of Darren M. Griffin, why they sat on their hands doing
nothing until after the scheduled case management conference.

The

motion, which the Magistrate Judge has now granted, should have
been filed with that affidavit at the end of February.

Plaintiff

has offered no explanation whatsoever why it wanted over six weeks
to request a continuance of the case management conference and
permission

to

conference.

serve

Rule

45

subpoenas

prior

to

a

Rule

16

The plaintiff apparently is filing a number of these

lawsuits and should have the procedure well in hand by now.
Plaintiff’s counsel would be well advised to follow the
first rule of holes.
digging.

When you find yourself in a hole--quit

In his explanation, counsel states that he has a number

of similar cases to this one filed with different judges in the
Middle District.

He states that the process leading up to the

2

initial case management conferences have been different and the
Court and counsel in each case have communicated and postponed the
case management

conference pending the result of subpoenas issued

to the internet service providers (“ISP”).
This statement caused the Magistrate Judge to look at the
fourteen other cases filed by this counsel in this matter.

All of

the orders setting initial case management conference require the
plaintiff to take action at a minimum of three days prior to the
scheduled hearing if they do not have service of process.
More
plaintiff

in

troubling,
each

case

however,
has

is

the

communicated

statement
and

that

the

postponed

the

conference pending the result of the subpoenas issued in the ISPs.
In reviewing the case of Voltage Pictures v. Does 1-74 3:13-cv-136
(Docket Entry No. 7) on April 8, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel failed
to file a proposed initial case management order and failed to
appear at the scheduled hearing before Magistrate Judge Bryant.
Judge Bryant warned him about this conduct
Counsel who failed to appear at another of his cases a week
before he failed to appear in this case would have been well
advised to have simply stated that he made an error in this case
and not dug himself further into a hole with statements which lead
the Magistrate Judge to check the record and find out that he was
a repeat offender.
While the Magistrate Judge will not recommend dismissal in

3

this matter, a sanction of $250.00 is imposed for failing to comply
with the Court’s order.

The initial case management conference is RESET for
Monday, June 24, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

4