Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 1 of 8 Case Management Report
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
WRIGHT ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP, LLC and WRIGHT
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BRITNEY SPEARS and BRITNEY
TOURING, INC.,
Defendants.
/
CASE NO: 48-2007-CA-014233-O
CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT
COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, WRIGHT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC
and WRIGHT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., (collectively referred to
hereinafter as “WEG” or “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants, BRITNEY SPEARS and
BRITNEY TOURING, INC., (respectively referred to hereinafter as “SPEARS”
and “BTI” or collectively as “Defendants”) by and through their undersigned
counsel and in compliance with this Honorable Court’s October 30, 2007 Notice of
Hearing and Order On Case Management Conference, and provides the following:
1. Statement of the Case:
The Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Personal Management
Agreement (hereinafter the “Agreement” and attached hereto as Exhibit A)
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 2 of 8 Case Management Report
wherein Plaintiffs agreed to engage in talent development, management,
marketing, tour planning and execution, and other services on behalf of SPEARS’
tour company, BTI, and several Controlled Entities for a period of one (1) year
with annual renewals. Defendants were to pay Plaintiffs management
commissions based upon a percentage of the “Gross Receipts” (as defined in
paragraph 6 of the Agreement). Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the
commissions due or properly account to Plaintiffs on the commissions of Gross
Receipts generated, accrued, substantially negotiated or resulting from the efforts
of WEG during the term of the Agreement. Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
breached the Agreement, both under its express terms and the implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing.
Defendants contend have admitted all of Plaintiffs allegations by way of
default.
2. Pleading issues, including service of process, venue, joinder of
additional parties, theories of liability, damages claimed and applicable
defenses:
(a) Service of Process. All Defendants have been properly served.
(b) Venue. The venue is Orange County, Florida.
(c) Joinder. There is no joinder of additional parties; the above style cause is
an action for damages.
(d) Issues to be tried include:
i) liability on the part of Defendants for breach of contract;
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 3 of 8 Case Management Report
ii) liability on the part of Defendants for accounting; and
iii) damages to Plaintiffs.
3. The identity and number of any motions to dismiss or other
preliminary or prediscovery motions which have been filed and the time
period in which they shall be filed, briefed and argued.
(a) Plaintiffs’ Motions. Currently pending to be set in the next 30 days:
i) The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment as to
liability.
4. A discovery plan and schedule including the length of the discovery
period, the anticipated number of fact and expert depositions to be permitted
and, as appropriate, the length and sequence of such deposition:
(a) Schedule. Discovery shall be conducted on a complex track
according to the schedule attached as Attachment B. All discovery,
other than on the issues to be determined by the Special Master, shall
be completed by September 30, 2008.
(b) General Limitations. All discovery requests and responses are subject
to the requirements of local business court rules.
(c) Confidentiality Order. To expedite the flow of discovery material,
facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality,
protect adequately material entitled to be kept confidential, and ensure
that protection is afforded only to material so entitled; Plaintiffs may
move this Court as needed.
(d) Document Preservation. Plaintiffs served and filed a Notice
Regarding Non-Destruction of Electronic Data or Computer Files for
preservation of all documents containing information that may be
relevant to, or may lead to the discovery of information relevant to the
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 4 of 8 Case Management Report
accounting of Gross Receipts as described in the Agreement between
Plaintiffs and Defendants and Defendants’ Controlled Entities.
(e) Interrogatories. Counsel shall, to the extent possible, combine their
interrogatories to any party into a single set of questions. No question
shall be asked that has already been answered in response to
interrogatories filed by another party unless there is reason to believe
that a different answer will be given. Without leave of court,
interrogatories shall not include more than 100 separate questions,
including subparts.
(f) Depositions. It is estimated that the parties will conduct
approximately 20+ depositions, which may or may not include the
deposition testimony of experts from all parties.
5. Anticipated areas of any expert testimony, timing for identification
of experts, responses to expert discovery, and exchange of expert reports;
(a) Area of Expertise. Experts will be from the financial, entertainment
corporate and securities industries.
(b) Timing.
i) Plaintiffs have agreed to designate their experts by September 30,
2008.
ii) Depositions of these experts will occur at the end of the discovery
period.
iii) Plaintiffs agree that all discovery will be completed by the end of
September 30, 2008.
6. An estimate of the volume of documents and computerized
information likely to be the subject of discovery from parties and nonparties
and whether there are technological means which may render document
discovery more manageable at an acceptable cost;
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 5 of 8 Case Management Report
(a) Special Agreements. Documents are voluminous and, to the extent
feasible, the Plaintiffs will convert exhibits to CD rom.
7. The advisability of using special masters(s) for fact finding,
mediation, or discovery disputes or such other matters as the parties may
agree upon;
The parties presently have no issue appropriate for a special master. The
Plaintiffs are agreeable to the Court’s discretion in the use of special masters if
it deems necessary.
8. The time period after the close of discovery within which post-
discovery dispositive motions shall be filed, briefed and argued and a tentative
schedule for such activities;
(a) Oct. 2008 Trial anticipated
(b) Sept. 30, 2008 Plaintiff to disclose expert witness
(c) Sept. 30, 2008 Defendant to disclose expert witness
(d) Sept. 30, 2008 All discovery closed
(e) Aug. 2008 Mediation (tentative)
(f) Oct. 15, 2008 Trial period starts, preferably with a time certain.
9. The possibility of settlement and the time of Alternative Dispute
Resolution, including the selection of a mediator or arbitrator(s).
See No. 8(e) for proposed Mediation date of August 2008.
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 6 of 8 Case Management Report
10. Whether or not a party or parties desire to use technologically
advanced methods of presentation or court-reporting and, to the extent that
this is the case, a determination of the following:
(a) Fairness issues, including but not necessarily limited to use of such
capabilities by some but not all of the parties and/or by parties whose resources
permit or require variations in the use of such capabilities;
(b) Issues related to compatibility of court and party facilities and
equipment;
(c) Issues related to the use of demonstrative exhibits and any balancing
of relevance and potential prejudice which may need to occur in connection
with such exhibits;
(d) Such other issues related to the use of the Court’s and parties’ special
technological facilities as may be raised by any party or the Court or its
technological advisor, given the nature of the case and the resources of the
parties.
Undetermined at this time.
11. A good faith estimate by counsel for each party based upon
consultation with all of the parties of the costs each party is likely to incur in
pursuing the litigation through trial court adjudication:
Unknown at this time.
12. A preliminary listing of the principal legal and factual issues which
counsel believe will need to be decided in the case;
I. Preliminary issues to be decided:
(a) Count I – Breach of Contract as to SPEARS and BTI.
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 7 of 8 Case Management Report
(b) Count II – Accounting as to SPEARS and BTI.
The Plaintiffs have a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment pending against the
Defendants, SPEARS and BTI, who have not filed a responsive pleading or any
papers in this matter. Should the Court grant the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of
Default Judgment against the Defendants, Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this
Case Management Report consistent with the Final Judgment by Default entered
by this Court.
II. Additional issues yet to be decided:
(a) Trial or hearing on the amount of damages following discovery of the
same from the Defendants and non-parties.
13. A preliminary listing of any legal principles and facts that are not
in dispute;
(a) The Personal Management Agreement was in effect.
(b) SPEARS paid management commissions to WEG through 2007.
14. A good faith estimate by counsel for each party of the length of
time to try the case;
Length of time to try case 1 week.
15. Whether a demand for jury trial has been made;
Demand for jury trial has been made.
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 8 of 8 Case Management Report
16. The deadline for filing motions in limine;
September 15, 2008.
17. The track to which the case will be assigned. The Business Court
typically employs the following management tracks: Business Expedited
(Target Trial Date within 12 months of complaint); Business Standard
(Target Trial Date within 18 months of complaint); Business Complex (Target
Trial date within two years of complaint).
Business Complex
DATED THIS 12th, day of February, 2008.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s/ Clay M. Townsend, Esq.
/s/ Clay M. Townsend, Esq./s/ Clay M. Townsend, Esq.
/s/ Clay M. Townsend, Esq.
CLAY M. TOWNSEND, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 363375
KEITH MITNIK, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 436127
GREGORIO FRANCIS, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 8478
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
PH: (407) 420-1414
Fax: (407) 425-8171
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com