Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 116

REPORT OF ATTORNEY PLANNING MEETING. (Pia, Joseph)

Joseph G. Pia (9945)
Nathan S. Dorius (8977)
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD & MOSS
222 South Main Street, Suite 1830
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
INCENTIVE CAPITAL, LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Company,
PLAINTIFF’S [PROPOSED]
ATTORNEYS’ PLANNING MEETING
REPORT

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 2:11-cv-00288-CW
CAMELOT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; CAMELOT
FILM GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation;
CAMELOT DISTRIBUTION GROUP, INC.,
a Nevada Corporation, ROBERT P. ATWELL,
an individual; JAMIE R. THOMPSON, an
individual; STEVEN ISTOCK, an individual;
TED BAER, an individual; PETER
JAROWEY, an individual,

Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate: Judge Nuffer

Defendants.

1.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS:
Approximately two months ago, on August 22, 2011, Plaintiff provided to Defendants’

counsel a draft Attorneys’ Planning Meeting Report. The parties were unable to agree on
discovery deadlines, and more particularly, counsel for Peter Jarowey has stated that “Jarowey
will not participate in discovery absent a Court order directing him to do so.” Because of the
1

forgoing and the fact that this case was originally filed on March 25, 2011 and there is still not a
discovery schedule, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter the following order to
govern the discovery time-line in this case.
a.

The nature of the claims and affirmative defenses are:
Plaintiff: Plaintiff asserts claims of (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of
Guaranty; (3) Promissory Estoppel; (4) Quasi Contract, Unjust Enrichment,
and/or Quantum Meruit; (5) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
(6) Fraud; (7) Fraud in the Inducement; (8) Alter Ego; (9) Civil Conspiracy; (10)
Conversion; (11) Negligent Misrepresentation; (12) Gross Negligence; (13)
Constructive Trust; and (14) Declaratory Relief. These claims arise out of certain
loans that Camelot took from Incentive to finance the acquisition and distribution
of a film and television library (“Liberation Library”).

Defendants and Counterclaimants Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc.,
Camelot Film Group, Inc., Camelot Distribution Group, Inc., Robert P.
Atwell, Jamie R. Thompson, Steven Istock (the “Camelot Defendants”): The
Camelot Defendants assert Counterclaims in their Answer to the Complaint
including (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Declaratory Relief; (3) Unlawful Business
Practices; (4) Constructive Fraud; (5) Intentional Interference with Prospective
Economic Advantage; (6) Unjust Enrichment.
Defendants Ted Baer and Peter Jarowey: Defendants have not yet answered
the Complaint. Defendant Baer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and
Defendant Jarowey’s Motion to Quash Service are pending.

b.

Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(f) counsel for all parties have conferred but have
been unable to agree to a schedule.

c.

The Plaintiff _____ request / ___ X__ does not request an initial pretrial
scheduling conference with the court prior to entry of the scheduling order.

2

d.

The parties will exchange by November 9, 2011 the initial disclosures required by
Rule 26(a)(1). By providing 26(a) disclosures, Defendants Baer and Jarowey are
not admitting personal jurisdiction.

e.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D), the parties shall receive all items required
to be served under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(a) by either (i) notice of electronic filing, or (ii)
e-mail transmission. Such electronic service will constitute service and notice of
entry as required by those rules. Any right to service by USPS mail is waived.

2.

DISCOVERY PLAN: For the purposes of this planning report, the “Parties” mean
Plaintiff Incentive Capital, LLC and Defendants Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc.,
Camelot Film Group, Inc., Camelot Distribution Group, Inc., Robert P. Atwell, Jamie R.
Thompson, Steven Istock, Ted Baer, and Peter Jarowey.
a.

Discovery is necessary on the following subjects: All claims and defenses
asserted by the parties.

b.

Designate the discovery methods to be used and the limitations to be imposed.
(1)

Oral Exam Depositions
Plaintiff(s): _12____
Defendant(s): _5____
Third-Party Defendants: __5____
Maximum no. hrs. per deposition: __7___

(2)
(3)
3.

Written Interrogatories are limited to no more than 25.
There is no limit on Request for Production of Documents or Requests for
Admissions.

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS AND ADDITION OF PARTIES:
a.

The cutoff dates for filing a motion to amend pleadings is: February 1, 2012
(NOTE: Establishing cutoff dates for filing motions does not relieve counsel
from the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)).

3

4.

EXPERT REPORTS:
Reports from experts under Rule 26(a)(2) will be submitted on:
Plaintiff, Counterclaimant, Third-Party Plaintiffs and Cross-Claim Plaintiffs:
___March 15, 2012______
Defendant(s), Counterclaim Defendant, Third-Party Defendant and Cross-Claim
Defendant: ___April 16, 2012____.
Counter reports __July 2, 2012___.

5.

OTHER DEADLINES:
a.

Discovery cutoff: Fact: April 16, 2012

Expert: May 15, 2012

b.

Final date for supplementation of disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) and of
discovery under Rule 26 (e) May 15, 2012.

c.

Deadline for filing dispositive motions or potentially dispositive motions and
Daubert motions is May 31, 2012.

6.

ADR/SETTLEMENT:
a.

The potential for resolution before trial is: ___ good

_X__ fair

____ poor

b.

This case should not be referred to the court's alternative dispute resolution
program at this time.

c.

The case should be re-evaluated for settlement/ADR resolution on:
April 16, 2012.

7.

TRIAL AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL:
a.

The parties should have fourteen days after service of final lists of witnesses and
exhibits to list objections under Rule 26(a)(3).

b.

This case should be ready for Jury trial by: December 1, 2012.

4

c.

The estimated length of the trial is 5-7 days.

PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD & MOSS
/s/ Joseph G. Pia
Joseph G. Pia
Attorney for Plaintiff Incentive Capital, LLC

Date: October 10, 2011

BY THE COURT:

____________________________________

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 10th day of October, 2011, a true and correct copy of
forgoing ATTORNEYS PLANNING MEETING REPORT was served by electronic mail on
the following:
John A. Snow
Karen E. O’Brien
VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNALL & McCARTHY
36 South State Street
Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Jonathan M. Levitan
12400 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1300
Los Angeles, CA 90025
[e-mail]
Wayne G. Petty
MOYLE & DRAPER, P.C.
175 E 400 S # 900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2357
[e-mail]
Marc E. Kasowitz
David J. Shapiro
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

By: /s/ Joseph Pia

6