CODY FOSTER & CO., INC. v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., 8:14CV80. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150512a96
Visitors: 21
Filed: May 11, 2015
Latest Update: May 11, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendants' motion to compel the depositions of artists Lisa Congdon and Cassandra Smith (Filing No. 89). Upon consideration of the parties' oral arguments and respective briefs the court finds the motion should be denied. "A request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action". Gladfelter v
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendants' motion to compel the depositions of artists Lisa Congdon and Cassandra Smith (Filing No. 89). Upon consideration of the parties' oral arguments and respective briefs the court finds the motion should be denied. "A request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action". Gladfelter v...
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendants' motion to compel the depositions of artists Lisa Congdon and Cassandra Smith (Filing No. 89). Upon consideration of the parties' oral arguments and respective briefs the court finds the motion should be denied.
"A request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action". Gladfelter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 589, 590 (D. Neb. 1995). However, the scope of discovery is not unlimited. Some threshold showing of relevance must be made before parties are required to produce a variety of information which does not "reasonably bear upon the issues in the case." Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992).
The artists in question apparently brought copyright claims against Cody Foster alleging it infringed on the copyright of certain ornament designs. Defendants seek to depose the artists with respect to those claims.
Based on the information currently before the court, I find the artists cannot provide relevant information regarding the motivation for Defendants' cancelling its contracts with Plaintiff, nor is the information relevant to any claim for damages. Accordingly, the depositions should not go forward and the motion to compel the depositions is denied.1
FootNotes
1. The court will rule separately on Defendants' request to compel the production of certain documents, also included in Filing No. 89.
Source: Leagle
