Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adria MM Productions, Ltd. v. Worldwide Entertainment Group, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

April 3, 2018

ADRIA MM PRODUCTIONS, LTD., Plaintiff,
v.
WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

          FEDERICO A. MORENO UNITED STATES-DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Worldwide Entertainment Group, Inc.'s Second Motion to Compel and for Additional Relief (D.E. 105), filed on January 17, 2018.

         THE COURT has considered the motion, the response, the reply, pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

         ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part. The Court will address each request in turn.

         1.: Interrogatory No. 4

         Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to amend its response to Defendant's First Interrogatory No. 4 is GRANTED because, irrespective of Judge Turnoff s decision at the hearing in October 2017[1], the request for the name and contact information for each person and/or entity that Plaintiff contacted regarding putting on an event after March 8, 2017 is relevant to Defendant's misappropriation claim. As such, Plaintiff is directed to respond and provide Defendant with the requested information.

         2. Interrogatory No. 10

         Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to amend its response to Defendant's First Interrogatory No. 10 is GRANTED because the date and purpose of each expenditure of ticket funds received from the 2017 Ultra Europe event(s) are relevant to Defendant's claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. As such, Plaintiff is directed to supplement its response and provide Defendant with the requested information.

         3. Interrogatory No. 19

         Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to amend its response to Defendant's First Interrogatory No. 19 is DENIED because Plaintiff already responded to the interrogatory, and Plaintiff is not required to specifically explain in its response what damages relate to each count as this juncture.

         4. Interrogatory No. 23

         Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to amend its response to Interrogatory No. 23 is DENIED. However, Defendant's alternative request asking this Court to compel Plaintiff to produce its foreign law expert, Mr. Hadzija, for deposition is GRANTED so as to resolve all issues surrounding the application of foreign law.

         5. Request to Require Plaintiff to Designate the Request for Production to which Each Document Produced is Responsive

         Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to designate the Request to which each document produced is responsive is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E) requires that electronically stored information be produced as it is kept in the usual course of business or the responding party must organize and label the documents to correspond to the categories in the request, and if a form for producing electronically stored ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.