Jackson et al v. Odenat
| Curtis James Jackson, III, Tomorrow Today Entertainment Inc. and G-Unit Records, Inc. |
| Lee Q. Odenat |
| 1:2009cv05583 |
| June 18, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| John F. Keenan |
| Plaintiff |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
219
MEMORANDUM ORDER: Before the Court are letters from plaintiffs dated October 2 and 8, 2014, and a letter from defendants dated October 7, 2014 (Docket ## 215, 216, 213). Plaintiffs seek to subpoena "for use at trial" the original recording of a "radio interview" given by defendant Lee Q. Odenat in February 2013. Discovery in this case closed in December 2012. Trial is set to begin on November 3, 2014. Notwithstanding this general principle, it is appropriate to use Rule 45 to obtain documents at trial in some circumstances most obviously when it is necessary to introduce the original of a document that was previously the subject of a discovery request. Here, plaintiffs do not contend that they need the original recordin g because their copy will be inadmissible at trial. Accordingly, we consider whether the discovery deadline should be extended for the limited purpose of obtaining the audio recording by subpoena. A request for an extension of a discovery may be gran ted where "good cause" is shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Because Odenat has not stated when he gave this interview, we will accept plaintiffs' assertion that it occurred in February 2013, which was after the close of discovery. Thus plaintiffs have plainly shown "good cause" for making the application after the discovery deadline. While they have provided no explanation for waiting more than a year and a half before seeking to obtain the unedited version, a number of c ircumstances counsel in favor of permitting the subpoena now despite this delay. First, the Court understands that the original is in the hands of a third party and that its production will not require any of the defendants to conduct or be the subje ct of any further discovery. Second, the nature of the evidence is well known to defendant Odenat inasmuch as he was a participant in the interview. Third, the jury could only benefit from having a full as opposed to a partial recording (assuming the recording is admitted into evidence at all). Finally, the discovery is extremely limited in scope. In light of these circumstances, the Court will permit plaintiffs to issue the subpoena provided they do within the next 5 days. ( Ready for Trial by 11/3/2014.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/10/2014) (ama)
|
|
Filing
159
OPINION AND ORDER re: 152 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 150 Memorandum & Opinion, Set Deadlines/Hearings filed by Lee Q. Odenat. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied. The parties are directed to schedule a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Gorenstein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 6/12/2014) (ama)
|
|
Filing
150
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 120 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Tomorrow Today Entertainment Inc., G-Unit Records, Inc., Curtis James Jackson, III, 110 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Lee Q. Odenat, 139 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing Third Party Complaint filed by Yves Mondesir. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted as to their copyright infringement and right to publicity claims; their motion for summary judgment is denied as to the false endorsement, trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition claims, as well as to th e fraudulent transfer and veil-piercing claims in the supplemental complaint.Mondesir's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the contributory copyright infringement and contributory trade infringement claims. His motions for summary judg ment and dismissal are denied as to Odenat's Lanham Act claim and the claim for contributory violation of New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50, 51. The Court also denies Mondesir's motion for attorney's fees as premature. The Cler k of Court is directed to close the open motions at Docket Nos. 110, 120, and 139. The Court will hold a status conference in this case on Wednesday, April 16, 2014, at 12:00 p.m. in Courtroom 20-C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse. SO ORDERED.( Status Conference set for 4/16/2014 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 20C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge John F. Keenan.) (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 3/24/2014) (ama)
|
|
Filing
45
OPINION & ORDER re: 39 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Tomorrow Today Entertainment Inc., G-Unit Records, Inc., Curtis James Jackson, III. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have shown good cause to permit the modification of the Court's scheduling order entered on September 16, 2009. Plaintiffs' motion to file their proposed Supplemental Complaint is therefore granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the open motion at Docket No. 39. The Court will hold a status conference in this case on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, at 11:45 a.m. in Courtroom 20-C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 2/14/2012) (mro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
