My Goals Solutions, Inc. et al v. Zeus Networks, LLC., et. al.
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02918
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In My Goals Solutions v. Zeus Networks, Judge Stein granted Zeus’s application and set the discovery disputes for a November 6, 2025 status conference.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs, My Goals Solutions, Inc. and NYC Medical Practice IP Holdings Corp., by requiring them to state their position on Zeus’s discovery complaints by October 24, 2025. It also directs the parties to address the discovery disputes at the November 6, 2025 status conference.
What happened
My Goals Solutions, Inc. and NYC Medical Practice IP Holdings Corp. sued Zeus Networks, LLC and other defendants. Zeus argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately calculated their claimed damages or responded to Zeus’s document requests.
Zeus asked the court either to hold a conference about these discovery disputes or to order the plaintiffs to correct their damages disclosures, provide complete responses, and produce responsive documents. The court did not decide whether the parties’ trademark claims were valid.
The court granted the application and directed that the discovery issues be addressed at the previously scheduled November 6, 2025 status conference. The plaintiffs must submit a letter stating their position by October 24, 2025. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein.
The detailed version
- My Goals Solutions, Inc. et al v. Zeus Networks, LLC., et. al. · No. 1:24-cv-02918
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 17, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs are My Goals Solutions, Inc. and NYC Medical Practice IP Holdings Corp. The defendants include Zeus Networks, LLC, John and Jane Does 1–10, and Business Entities A–J. According to Zeus’s discovery letter, the remaining claims concern trademark infringement under federal and New York law and trademark dilution under New York law, based on Zeus’s alleged use of the plaintiffs’ marks in the television series Transforming Rollie.
Zeus’s counsel reported that the parties had exchanged some initial disclosures, interrogatory responses, and requests for admission. Zeus also stated that it had answered the plaintiffs’ document requests and produced responsive documents, while the plaintiffs had not answered Zeus’s first document request, served on July 21, 2025, or produced documents.
Discovery dispute
Zeus challenged the plaintiffs’ damages disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The disclosure claimed at least $4 million, plus attorney fees and costs, and referred generally to willful trademark use, trebled profits, and damages to be determined through discovery. Zeus argued that the disclosure did not provide a detailed computation for each damages category, explain the $4 million figure, or identify supporting documents or other evidence. Zeus also stated that the plaintiffs’ answer to Interrogatory No. 14 improperly referred back to the Rule 26 disclosure instead of providing a damages computation.
Zeus requested a conference or, alternatively, an order requiring the plaintiffs to correct their Rule 26 disclosures, provide complete responses to Zeus’s document request, and produce all responsive documents. The opinion text does not include a substantive determination about the trademark claims or the amount of damages.
Ruling
The court stated, “Application granted.” It directed that the discovery issues be taken up at the status conference previously scheduled for November 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The plaintiffs were directed to submit a letter explaining their position on the issues raised by Zeus by October 24, 2025. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.