Zama Capital Advisors LP, et al. v. Universal Entertainment Corporation, et al.

Background

The court addressed defendants’ letter at ECF No. 167 and related docket entries. At a July 31 status conference, the court had instructed plaintiffs to narrow discovery requests that were overbroad and to address proportionality—the requirement that requested discovery be appropriate in light of the needs and burdens of the case. Discovery closed on September 30, and no party sought an extension or renewed the disputes from an August 28 letter before that deadline.

Plaintiffs had argued that an earlier order by Judge Vyskocil denying defendants’ motion to strike allegations established that the subjects of their discovery requests were relevant. Judge Wang stated that the earlier order did not address plaintiffs’ discovery requests and did not hold that the requests were appropriate. The opinion also states that plaintiffs refused to narrow their requests and did not discuss proportionality as directed.

Representation issue

Judge Wang stated that she was troubled to learn from defendants’ sanctions motion, rather than directly from plaintiffs’ counsel, that plaintiffs’ counsel may have a conflict with their client. Because a corporation cannot appear without a lawyer, the court directed plaintiffs to clarify their representation no later than their post-discovery appearance before Judge Vyskocil on October 30.

Ruling

Judge Wang ordered that ECF Nos. 167, 159, and 143 were DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court was directed to close those docket entries. The opinion does not state that the court ruled on defendants’ sanctions motion, and it does not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.