Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
In accordance with the Initial Scheduling Order of the Court, the parties provide the
following information:
1. The following persons participated in a Rule 26(f) planning conference on April
____, 2010, by email exchange:
(a) Frank Herrera, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
(b) Frederic O’Neal.
(c ) Nicholas Egoroff.
(d) Douglas Guetzloe.
2. Initial Disclosures. The parties will exchange the information required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before April 30, 2010.
3. Discovery Plan. The parties jointly propose to the Court the following discovery
plan:
(a) Discovery will be needed on the following subjects: (1) all information
relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings herein; (2) who is funding
Plantiffs’ lawsuit and why; (3) communications between Everett Wilkinson
and Robin Steublen regarding whether there existed a dispute over use of
the name “Tea Party” between Plaintiffs and Defendants at the time
1
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 22-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2010 Page 2 of 4
2
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 22-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2010 Page 3 of 4
(f) Upon completion of discovery, the parties will confer to discuss settlement
as to the issue of damages before the scheduled mediation.
(g) Mediation shall be held within 28 days after the close of discovery.
(h) Final list of witnesses and exhibits under Rule 26(a)(3) should be due in
accordance with the trial scheduling order from this Court.
(i) Parties should have one week after service of final list of witnesses and
exhibits to list objections under Rule 26(a)(3).
(j) This case should be ready for trial on September 27, 2010; the trial is
anticipated to take approximately three (3) days
(k) The parties have conferred regarding their willingness to consent to
magistrate judge jurisdiction.
(l) Nature and Basis of Claims and Defenses.
(i) Plaintiffs assert that they have an unqualified right to use the phrase
“TEA PARTY” or similar terms and phrases in connection with their
activities and should not be required to request permission from any of the
Defendants prior to such use.
(ii) Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint,
wherein Defendants claim there is no actual controversy between Plaintiffs
and Defendants over the use of the name “Tea Party” in Plaintiffs’
organizational names.
(m) Factual and Legal Issues in Dispute:
Whether Plaintiffs must obtain prior approval from the Defendants in order
to use the phrase “TEA PARTY”, or similar terms and phrases. If the
statutes relied upon by the Defendants are legitimate or whether they are
preempted by the Lanham Act, or otherwise inconsistent with trademark
doctrine.
(n) Following discovery, there is the potential that the parties may agree on
settlement. Mediation will take place within the time limits prescribed
above.
(o) All timetables and cutoffs, as set forth herein, are approved by the parties.
3
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 22-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2010 Page 4 of 4
The parties respectfully request that the above-referenced timetables and cut-off dates be
approved.
Dated this _6th_day of April, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,