Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 1 of 8 1st Amended 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
FIRST AMENDED 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 1st Amended 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. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were to pay Plaintiffs
management commissions based upon a percentage of the “Gross Receipts” (as
defined in paragraph 6 of the Agreement). Plaintiffs allege that 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 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 as of
November 1, 2007.
(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) Defaults. Defaults were entered against the Defendants on December
18, 2007.
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 3 of 8 1st Amended Case Management Report
(e) Judgments. Final Judgments as to liability were entered against the
Defendants on February 14, 2008.
(f) Issues to be tried include:
i) Damages only for the liability on the part of Defendants for breach
of contract; and
ii) Damages only for liability on the part of Defendants for
accounting.
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 Order for Preservation of
Records.
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. All
discovery, other than on the issues to be determined by the Special
Master, shall be completed by October 31, 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.
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 4 of 8 1st Amended Case Management Report
(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
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 by October 31, 2008.
iii) Plaintiffs agree that all discovery will be completed by the end of
October 31, 2008.
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 5 of 8 1st Amended Case Management Report
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;
(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) Jan. 2009 Trial anticipated (1 week)
(b) Sept. 30, 2008 Plaintiff to disclose expert witness
(c) Sept. 30, 2008 Defendant to disclose expert witness
(d) Oct. 31, 2008 All discovery closed
(e) Oct. 2008 Mediation (tentative)
(f) Jan. 2009 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 October 2008.
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 6 of 8 1st Amended 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. Default Judgments have been entered as to liability against the Defendants on:
(a) Count I – Breach of Contract as to SPEARS and BTI.
(b) Count II – Accounting 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 1st Amended Case Management Report
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.
16. The deadline for filing motions in limine;
October 31, 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
Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version http://www.neevia.com
Case No.: 07-CA-014233 Page 8 of 8 1st Amended Case Management Report
(Target Trial Date within 18 months of complaint); Business Complex (Target
Trial date within two years of complaint).
Business Complex
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of March, 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