A&E Television Networks, LLC et al v. Pivot Point Entertainment, LLC et al
||A&E Television Networks, LLC and D&D Television Productions, Inc.
||Pivot Point Entertainment, LLC, Duane Chapman and Alice Barmore-Smith Chapman
||December 17, 2010
||US District Court for the Southern District of New York
||Foley Square Office
||Paul G. Gardephe
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|June 11, 2013
ORDER re: 206 MOTION to Strike and Preclude. On May 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that certain of Defendant Pivot Point's pre-trial filings be struck and that Pivot Point be precluded from presenting certain direct testimony. ( Dkt. Nos. 206-208) The basis for Plaintiffs' motion was that Pivot Point had failed to abide by the deadlines set in this Court's scheduling order, (Dkt. No. 200), or by the terms of this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases. Al though Plaintiffs' motion did not specifically request that the testimony of Alice Barmore-Smith Chapman ("Ms. Chapman") be precluded, they did note, in support of their motion, that Pivot Point "relies on the planned testimony of persons for whom it should have submitted, but failed to submit, affidavits pursuant to Rule 5(D)(iii) [of this Court's Individual Practices], including [Ms.] Chapman.... " (P1. Br. 3). Under the facts and circumstances, wherein Pivot Poin t failed to comply with the Court's original order regarding pretrial submissions, failed to abide by the terms of the Court's order regarding the submission of Ms. Chapman's testimony, and failed to abide by the Court's Individua l Practices regarding requests for adjournment, the Court concludes that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), sanctions are appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); see also Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Global NAPs Inc., 624 F. 3d 123, 144 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing Rule 37(b) sanctions and noting that "[t]he district court is free to consider the full record in the case in order to select the appropriate sanction" (internal quotations omitted). Having considered all relevant factors, see Global NAPs Inc. (quoting Aqiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009)), the Court concludes and SO ORDERS that the just result in this case is to preclude Defendants from presenting Ms. Chapman's testimony and from calling her as a witness at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); see also Scherbakoskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd., 490 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2007). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/11/2013) (ft) Modified on 6/11/2013 (ft).
|March 27, 2013
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons discussed herein, THE COURT ORDERS that: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Pivot Point's Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs is GRANTED in part and D ENIED in part; and Pivot Point's Motion for Summary Judgment against the Chapmans is DENIED. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that a conference in this matter will be held on April 4, 2013, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 906 of the United States District Cour t for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. THE COURT FINALLY ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule SA of this Court's Individual Rules in Civil Cases, the parties' shall submit to the Court their proposed joint pretrial order within fourteen days of this decision. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/27/2013) (cd)
|January 18, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, this interpleader action will proceed. Plaintiffs are directed to deposit into this Court's Registry, by January 25, 2011, $2,400,732.59. Plaintiffs are likewise directed to deposit into the Court's Registry additional fees and royalties due under the Pivot Point Agreement as those amounts become due. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 1/18/2011) (jpo)
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?