Marc Tetro, Inc. v. Treboux
- P. Castel
- 1:19-cv-02691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marc Tetro v. Treboux, Judge Castel ordered discovery and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal or default judgment.
Marc Tetro, Inc. and Ann Treboux, doing business as Paula Datesh and Jeff Wentzel; the order imposed information-sharing and service requirements on both sides.
What happened
Marc Tetro, Inc. v. Treboux concerns a dispute over allegedly counterfeit items and images. The court held a telephone conference attended by plaintiff’s counsel and Ann Treboux, who was representing herself.
The court ordered both sides to exchange specified information by August 11, 2020. Plaintiff had to provide information about people who photographed or recorded Treboux and about when and where she allegedly sold the items. Treboux had to provide records of image purchases, quarterly sales and revenue information, and supporting documents.
Judge Castel also ordered plaintiff to serve Treboux by email and mail, set the next conference for October 9, 2020, and warned that failure to comply could result in striking a pleading, dismissal of the case, or default judgment against Treboux.
The detailed version
- Marc Tetro, Inc. v. Treboux · No. 1:19-cv-02691
- P. Castel
- July 15, 2020
Background
The opinion concerns a dispute between Marc Tetro, Inc. and Ann Treboux, doing business as Paula Datesh and Jeff Wentzel. The complaint refers to allegedly counterfeit items and images purportedly protected by a copyright registration. The court held a teleconference on July 10, 2020. Plaintiff’s counsel participated, and Treboux proceeded without a lawyer.
Court’s Order
The court ordered plaintiff, by August 11, 2020, to provide Treboux with the present or last known address of anyone who took video recordings or photographs of Treboux in California or New York, along with copies of those recordings or photographs. Plaintiff also had to provide, in writing, the dates, times, and locations when Treboux allegedly sold the counterfeit items in California or New York.
The court separately ordered Treboux, by the same date, to provide records of purchases of images identified in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint. Treboux also had to identify, on a quarterly basis, all revenue, sales, and profits from items bearing those images for the period beginning three years before the complaint was filed through the present, and provide documentary support for that information.
The court directed plaintiff to serve Treboux both by email and by U.S. mail at the address specified in the order. The court also rescheduled the next conference for 2:00 p.m. on October 9, 2020, in Courtroom 11D at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse.
Warning and Disposition
The court warned that failure to comply with any part of the order would result in striking the noncomplying party’s pleading. For plaintiff, the order stated that this would mean dismissal of the case. For Treboux, it would mean striking any answer and entering default judgment against her. The court entered these discovery and case-management directives; it did not decide the underlying allegations in this order. The opinion identifies the judge as “CASTEL, U.S.D.J.” but does not provide a first name.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.