Filed: Feb. 07, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2020
Summary: ORDER KATHRYN H. VRATIL , District Judge . On January 9, 2020, while partially granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court found that Brett Mosiman was no longer a plaintiff in the case, so he had no claims for damages to recover amounts which he had allegedly incurred as personal debt. Memorandum And Order (Doc. #735) at 25. The Court also held that Pipeline Productions, Inc. and Backwood Enterprises LLC could not recover for his personal debts. Id. On January 23, 2020
Summary: ORDER KATHRYN H. VRATIL , District Judge . On January 9, 2020, while partially granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court found that Brett Mosiman was no longer a plaintiff in the case, so he had no claims for damages to recover amounts which he had allegedly incurred as personal debt. Memorandum And Order (Doc. #735) at 25. The Court also held that Pipeline Productions, Inc. and Backwood Enterprises LLC could not recover for his personal debts. Id. On January 23, 2020,..
More
ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, District Judge.
On January 9, 2020, while partially granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court found that Brett Mosiman was no longer a plaintiff in the case, so he had no claims for damages to recover amounts which he had allegedly incurred as personal debt. Memorandum And Order (Doc. #735) at 25. The Court also held that Pipeline Productions, Inc. and Backwood Enterprises LLC could not recover for his personal debts. Id. On January 23, 2020, plaintiffs filed their Motion To Reconsider Portions Of Court's Order (Doc. 735) Granting In Part Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #761). In that motion, plaintiffs ask the Court to clarify the scope of its order on Mosiman's personal debts. Specifically, Pipeline and Backwood assert that they should be able to recover items of debt or loss that they incurred, "notwithstanding how those items were characterized in York's now excluded report." Plaintiffs refer to the Steven York Report (Doc. #761-1) filed January 23, 2020, which characterized specific amounts as personal debt which Mosiman was required to assume.1
Plaintiffs' motion is now moot. On January 31, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James entered a Second Amended Pretrial Order (Doc. #795), which specifies plaintiffs' damage claims for each substantive cause of action. As best the Court can ascertain, these damage claims do not include the specific amounts at issue in plaintiffs' motion to reconsider.2
Furthermore, during trial, the Court has devoted vast amounts of time and energy to the question of what types and amounts of damages are available to plaintiffs. The Court has not categorically rejected any type or amount of damages on the ground that York previously characterized it as a debt or loss that Mosiman was required to personally assume.
Plaintiffs' damage claims have been the paradigmatically moving target, and plaintiffs have had multiple chances to iterate, re-iterate and re-re-iterate their damage claims. E.g., Id.; Steven York Report (Doc. #761-1); Amended Pretrial Order (Doc. #660) filed November 15, 2019; Plaintiffs' Response To Show Cause Order (Doc. #791) filed January 30, 2020. After days of uninterrupted opportunity to make their best case on their theories and amounts of damages, they have almost entirely failed to satisfy the two relevant threshold inquiries: (1) whether they breached their duties to initially disclose a computation for each category of damages claimed under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and to supplement those computations under Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.; and (2) whether notwithstanding said breach, they should be allowed to testify about their damage computations at trial.3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion To Reconsider Portions Of Court's Order (Doc. 735) Granting In Part Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #761) filed January 23, 2020 is OVERRULED as moot.
