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.

Square Ring, Inc. v. Troyanovsky

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

April 6, 2018

SQUARE RING, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
EDUARD TROYANOVSKY, Defendant.

          AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [1]

          GARY R. JONES United States Magistrate Judge

         Pursuant to the Court's directive, ECF No. 28, the undersigned held a case management conference on April 4, 2018, for the purpose of resolving any pending disputes and establishing a recommended schedule for completion of discovery. John Wirt appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, Square Ring, Inc. (“Square Ring”), and Tanya Kalivas appeared on behalf of Defendant, Eduard Troyanovsky (“Troyanovsky”).

         The primary scheduling dispute concerns the deadline for fact discovery and the disclosure of expert reports. Square Ring proposes that the Court set August 9, 2018, as the deadline for fact discovery, and set August 31, 2018, as the deadline for disclosure of expert reports (after the close of fact discovery). Troyanovsky, however, urges the Court to establish a more condensed schedule for the purpose of more expeditiously resolving this case.

         The Court determines that for the reasons summarized below-and particularly due to the nature and type of discovery in this case and the fact that Troyanovsky is located in Russia-a discovery deadline in August, while ambitious, is appropriate.

         This case concerns a dispute regarding a promotional agreement between Troyanovsky, a professional boxer who resides in Russia, and Square Ring, a boxing promoter. Square Ring alleges that Troyanovsky participated in bouts arranged by other boxing promoters, violating the exclusive promotional agreement and resulting in Square Ring's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

         Based on the nature of the claims and the parties involved, multiple discovery challenges exist in this case. For example, Troyanovsky resides in Russia and does not read or speak English, so there may be difficulties coordinating and conducting his deposition. Further, the documents relevant to this case, which will be produced by Troyanovsky, most likely will be in Russian, requiring Plaintiff to obtain translations of the documents.

         Additionally, Square Ring represents that it may have two experts in this case-a forensic expert to examine Troyanovsky's computer and a damages expert. While it is less than certain at this point whether Square Ring will retain a forensic expert until after it deposes Troyanovsky, a damages expert will be necessary and essential to the presentation of Plaintiff's case.

         Although Square Ring requests the Court to set the deadline for disclosure of expert reports after the close of the fact discovery deadline, the Court disagrees. Because Plaintiff will not be conducting much, if any, third party discovery since most of the witnesses are located abroad, it is highly unlikely that any depositions or other discovery will be conducted at the last minute shortly before the close of discovery. Plaintiff, therefore, should have more than sufficient time during the next four months to provide the necessary information to its expert to enable the expert to formulate an opinion on damages. The Court should set the deadline for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of full expert reports under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) for August 10, 2018 as to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof. The deadline to serve rebuttal expert reports should be set for September 10, 2018. The deadline to complete expert depositions should be set for October 1, 2018. The deadline for filing dispositive motions, including any Daubert motions should be set for October 29, 2018.

         Regarding the initial scheduling order and the Rule 26(f) report deadlines that have passed and agreements that have been reached, the parties represent that initial disclosures were provided by the deadline of March 23, 2018. The parties also represent that they reached an agreement regarding ESI and that they will submit a negotiated protective order, which will include a Rule 502(d) “clawback.”

         The following additional deadline proposed by the parties also is appropriate in this case. The deadline to join additional parties and amend pleadings should be April 30, 2018.

         Lastly, during the hearing the Court explored the potential efficacy of mediation with a certified mediator or a settlement conference before a United States Magistrate Judge. Although the parties are not opposed to mediation or a settlement conference, reference of the case to mediation or a settlement conference would not be appropriate until after the close of discovery and the disclosure of expert reports. At that point, the case would be appropriate for reference to mediation before a certified mediator or referral for a settlement conference before a United States Magistrate Judge.

         Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge enter an appropriate case management and scheduling order consistent with the following deadlines:

1. Motions to join additional parties or to amend the pleadings must be filed on or before ...

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.