Brothers v. CarpeVita Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 54

ORDER RE DISCOVERY (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(Brown, Joe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
BEAU K. BROTHERS,

)
)
Plaintiff and
)
Counterclaim Defendant )
v.
)
)
CARPEVITA HOLDINGS, INC.
)
and CARPEVITA, INC.,
)
)
Defendants and
)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs )

No. 3:16-0905
Judge Crenshaw/Brown

and
SITTERS ETC., INC. and SITTERS
ETC. FRANCHISING, LLC,
Plaintiffs
v.
BEAU K. BROTHERS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-1200
Judge Crenshaw/Brown

Defendant
O R D E R
A lengthy hearing was held in this matter on July 22,
2016, concerning six discovery items that were necessary to be
resolved

prior

to

the

hearing

before

Judge

Crenshaw

on

the

preliminary injunction.
The first two items involved four credit cards: two
American Express accounts, a Capital One account, and a Chase
Southwest Airlines account.
After discussion with the parties the Plaintiff should
provide the credit cards’ statements for the dates requested. It
appears to the Magistrate Judge that inasmuch as the Plaintiff
apparently has access to these four accounts, he should be able to
request and

print

out

the

statements

from

the

accounts

with

relatively little difficulty. These statements should be provided
as soon as practicable and certainly no later than July 28, 2016.
The

Magistrate

Judge

understands

that

Mr.

Brothers’

deposition is now scheduled for August 2, 2016, and although that
date is one day past the previously set deadline, there are good
reasons for doing it on that date, and a one-day extension is
GRANTED.
Item three requested the credit cards’ statements or any
other personal cards that were paid by either Sitters’ entities or
that Mr. Brothers’ claims were reimbursed.
The Plaintiff need not answer this request at this time.
The Magistrate Judge believes that this is getting well into the
merit litigation and would not be essential for the upcoming
hearing before Judge Crenshaw.
Item four is the bank statements for any accounts where
Mr. Brothers deposited funds on six specific dates with designated
amounts. During discussion with Mr. Brothers’ counsel, he stated
that they would not dispute that he received the funds listed in
Item 4. In view of this, Defendant’s counsel advised that they
would not need these records at this point. To the extent that
during the merits part of the case Mr. Brothers contends that he
used these funds to pay corporate expenses, then checks showing
such payments would be relevant at that time. They are not needed
for the upcoming hearing.
Item five requests bank statements for any account in
which

Mr.

Brothers

deposited

$127,500

in

connection

with

a

franchise fee from a Minnesota company. Mr. Brothers will be

2

deposed and the Magistrate Judge expects Mr. Brothers to provide
specific answers to questions concerning the disposition of this
franchise fee. If he cannot provide specific answers the Defendant
may reopen this request and it will be granted.
Item six requested bank statements for any accounts to
which Mr. Brothers deposited any other funds received through
certain dates. After discussion with counsel, this is really a
continuation of Item four and the same ruling given concerning Item
four will apply to Item six.
The parties are advised that the Magistrate Judge will be
available on the date Mr. Brothers’ deposition is scheduled and if
absolutely necessary the parties may contact the Magistrate Judge
for any rulings needed during the course of that deposition.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3