Case 6:22-cv-02417-RBD-LHP Document 49 Filed 03/06/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1933
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`
`
`DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`LUCASFILM LTD. LLC and
`LUCASFILM ENTERTAINMENT
`COMPANY LTD. LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`THE SECRET DIS GROUP LLC,
`POPSELLA INC., CHRISTOPHER B.
`MARTIN and HANNAH MARTIN,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants
`
`Case No: 6:22-cv-2417-RBD-LHP
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following
`
`motion filed herein:
`
`MOTION: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF’S CORPORATE
`REPRESENTATIVE AND AWARD SANCTIONS
`(Doc. No. 43)
`
`FILED:
`
`March 2, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`
`
`DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`LUCASFILM LTD. LLC and
`LUCASFILM ENTERTAINMENT
`COMPANY LTD. LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`THE SECRET DIS GROUP LLC,
`POPSELLA INC., CHRISTOPHER B.
`MARTIN and HANNAH MARTIN,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants
`
`Case No: 6:22-cv-2417-RBD-LHP
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following
`
`motion filed herein:
`
`MOTION: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF’S CORPORATE
`REPRESENTATIVE AND AWARD SANCTIONS
`(Doc. No. 43)
`
`FILED:
`
`March 2, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-02417-RBD-LHP Document 49 Filed 03/06/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1934
`
`
`
`
`
`Discovery in this matter closed on March 4, 2024. Doc. No. 17. By the
`
`present motion, filed on March 2, 2024, Defendants seek to compel Plaintiffs’
`
`corporate representative deposition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Doc. No.
`
`43. According to the motion, Plaintiffs offered February 28, 2024 for the
`
`deposition, Defendants served their notice of deposition on February 23, 2024, and
`
`Plaintiffs thereafter rescinded the February 28, 2024 offer, failed to provide
`
`additional deposition dates before the discovery deadline, and failed to appear at
`
`the February 28, 2024 deposition, which went forward. Id. Plaintiffs oppose the
`
`motion. Doc. No. 48.
`
`Upon review, even setting aside the argued procedural deficiencies with the
`
`motion,1 the motion is due to be substantively denied on the merits. Specifically,
`
`on consideration of Plaintiffs’ response in opposition to the motion and the exhibits
`
`submitted in support, see Doc. No. 48, the Court concludes that the representations
`
`in Defendants’ motion can only be characterized as disingenuous at best, and bad
`
`faith at worst.
`
`Initially, Plaintiffs submit email communications between counsel from
`
`February 2024 that Defendants wholly fail to address and/or include with their
`
`motion, which the Court can only deem to be a deliberate omission. Doc. Nos. 48-
`
`
`
`1 See Doc. No. 17, at 10; Doc. No. 19.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-02417-RBD-LHP Document 49 Filed 03/06/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1935
`
`
`
`
`1, 48-3. 2 Those emails demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ counsel initially agreed to a
`
`February 28, 2024 deposition date, provided that the deposition was noticed at least seven
`
`business days in advance. See Doc. No. 48-1, at 2; cf. Local Rule 3.04 (requiring
`
`fourteen days’ notice). Defendants, by their own motion, admit that they did not
`
`comply: the deposition was noticed on February 23, 2024. See Doc. No. 43, at 2;
`
`see also Doc. No. 48-2, at 2. Further, Plaintiffs notified Defendants that the areas of
`
`inquiry set forth in the deposition notice were deficient. See Doc. No. 48-3, at 11–
`
`12; see also Doc. No. 48-2, at 3 (identifying only the deponent “with most knowledge
`
`of the issues of this case”); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (requiring 30(b)(6) deposition
`
`notice to “describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination”).
`
`What is more, Defendants proceeded with the deposition despite unequivocal and
`
`repeated confirmation from Plaintiffs’ counsel that the deponent was no longer
`
`available on that date based on Defendants’ failure to provide proper notice. See
`
`Doc. No. 48-3, at 5, 7, 10, 11–12. Finally, the email communications between
`
`counsel further demonstrate that defense counsel has at times wholly failed to meet
`
`and confer with counsel for Plaintiffs, despite requests to do so. See, e.g., id., at 2–
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Defendants include with their motion only emails from November 7, 2023,
`December 6, 2023, and January 30, 2024 requesting deposition dates. See Doc. Nos. 43-1
`through 43-4.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-02417-RBD-LHP Document 49 Filed 03/06/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1936
`
`
`
`
`
`Based on the above, the Court has considered issuing an Order to Show
`
`Cause to Defendants as to whether sanctions should be imposed for the filing of the
`
`motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). Nonetheless, given the recent history of
`
`this litigation, see Doc. Nos. 30–48, the Court has elected to forego consideration of
`
`sanctions in this one instance, in particular because Plaintiffs do not request them.
`
`See Doc. No. 48. But defense counsel3 is reminded, in the strongest terms possible,
`
`of counsel’s obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, as well as the
`
`duty of candor owed to the Court. Future filings of this nature may result in the
`
`imposition of sanctions – against the offending party, counsel, or both.
`
`Consequently, for the substantive reasons argued by Plaintiffs in response
`
`(Doc. No. 48), Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 43) is DENIED. And with the
`
`exception of the depositions scheduled to take place in the Courthouse on March 7–
`
`8, and 11, 2024, discovery is now CLOSED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Although only Richard C. Wolfe, Esq. has appeared as counsel for Defendants in
`this case, the record demonstrates that the case has been litigated in substantial part by an
`attorney named Mason R. Wolfe, who is not admitted to practice in this Court. See, e.g.,
`Doc. Nos. 48-1, 48-3. Attorney Richard C. Wolfe is cautioned that because he is counsel
`of record in this case, the Court presumes that any conduct by attorneys working on this
`case on behalf of Defendants was at his direction and under his supervision.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-02417-RBD-LHP Document 49 Filed 03/06/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1937
`
`
`
`
`
`DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 6, 2024.
`
`
`Copies furnished to:
`
`Counsel of Record
`Unrepresented Parties
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
