Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 31

Filed 03/28/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:321

1 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP Michael J. O'Connor (STATE BAR NO. 90017) 2 Andrew W. DeFrancis (STATE BAR NO. 246399) 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Twenty-Third Floor 3 Los Angeles California 90067-4008 Telephone: 310) 712-6100 4 Facsimile: 10) 712-6199 moconnor@kelleydrye.com 5 adefrancis kelleydrye.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs NZK PRODUCTIONS INC. and 7 HORIZON ALTER. TELEVISION INC. 8 BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC D. Bradley Kizzia 8226 Douglas Avenue, Suite 411 9 Dallas, Texas 75225 10 Telephone: c469) 893-9940 Facsimile: 214) 613-3330 11 brad@brown oxlaw.corn 12 Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN CARBONE and REALITY STEVE, LLC 13 [Local Counsel Listed on Signature Page] 14 15 16 17 18 19 NZK PRODUCTIONS INC, a California corporation, and HORIZON ALTERNATIVE TELEVISION INC., a 20 Delaware corporation, 21 Plaintiffs, 22 V. 23 STEPHEN CARBONE, an individual, 24 REALITY STEVE, LLC, a Texas limited liability corporation, and DOES 25 1 through 10, inclusive, 26 27 28 Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 26-1
CV11-10118 GHK (Ex) JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE REPORT PURSUANT TO RULE 26(f)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

CASE NO. CV11-10118 GHK (Ex)

JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE REPORT PURSUANT TO RULE 26(f)

Defendants.

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 31

Filed 03/28/12 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:322

1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central District of 2 California and subject to Defendants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC 3 ("Defendants") Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and without 4 waiving same, Plaintiffs NZK Productions Inc. and Horizon Alternative Television 5 Inc. ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants (Plaintiffs and Defendants collectively shall be 6 referred to as the "Parties") respectfully submit this Joint Scheduling Conference 7 Report. This Joint Scheduling Conference Report was prepared following the 8 conference between Andrew W. DeFrancis, on behalf of Plaintiffs, and D. Bradley 9 Kizzia, on behalf of Defendants, on March 12, 2012. 10 A. 11

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

Plaintiffs, the producer and distributor of the television programs The

12 Bachelor, The Bachelorette, and the Bachelor Pad (the "Bachelor Series"), initiated 13 this action against Defendants, the individual and entity responsible for the website 14 www.realitysteve.com , and they allege that Defendants attempted and did in fact 15 induce former participants and/or crew members from the Bachelor Series to breach 16 their contracts with Plaintiffs. Defendants deny these allegations. 17 B. 18

COMPLEXITY OF CASE EL.R. 26-1(a)1

The Parties agree that if the Court were to deny Defendants' pending Motion

19 to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the case is not complex and that the 20 procedures set forth in the Manual on Complex Litigation need not be utilized. 21 C. 22

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS EL.R. 26-1(b)1

Plaintiffs and Defendants each intend to file a motion for summary judgment

23 in this action. The Parties propose that all dispositive motions should be filed by 24 January 2013. 25 III 26 III 27 III 28 D.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS AND SETTLEMENT SELECTION

CVII-10118 GHK (Ex) JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE REPORT PURSUANT TO RULE 26(f)

299284.2.doc

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 31

Filed 03/28/12 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:323

1
2

[L.R. 26-1(c) and 16-15.4)] The parties have been engaged in on-going settlement discussions. Should

3 the Parties be unable to settle, the Parties would be willing to participate in a non4 judicial dispute resolution proceeding pursuant to Settlement Procedure No. 3 at 5 Local Rule 16-15.4. 6 E. 7 TIME ESTIMATE FOR TRIAL IL.R. 26-1(d)1 The Parties estimate that the time required to try this case by jury will be in

8 the range of 5 to 7 days. The Parties propose that trial be set for March 2013. 9 F. 10 11 LIKELIHOOD OF APPEARANCE OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES [L.R. 26-1(e)] At this time, the Parties do not foresee joining any additional parties;

12 however, the Parties reserve the right to join additional parties to this action as such 13 additional parties are revealed through discovery. 14 G. 15 16 PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN

1.

Initial Disclosures per Rule 26(a) [Rule 26(f)(3)(A)]

The Parties disagree about the timing of initial disclosures pursuant to Federal

17 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). 18 Defendants believe that discovery should be stayed pending the resolution of

19 their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. That motion is currently 20 scheduled to be heard on May 20, 2012.' 21 Plaintiffs do not believe that discovery should be so stayed. The Court has 22 already granted Plaintiffs' ex parte application to conduct jurisdictional discovery 23 (including conducting depositions and written discovery), which Plaintiffs have 24 already initiated. In addition, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly allow for 25 26
I

27 28

May 20, 2012, is a Sunday; accordingly, the Parties' anticipate that this date will be moved by the Court.
CVI1-10118 GHK (Ex) 2 JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE REPORT PURSUANT TO RULE 26(f)

299284.2.doc

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 31

Filed 03/28/12 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:324

1 all discovery to begin immediately after the Parties' Rule 26(f) conference. See Fed.
2 R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Despite suggestions to the contrary, the timing of discovery is 3 not tied to the state of the pleadings. Because the Parties now have conferred 4 pursuant to Rule 26(0, discovery should be open. Id. 5 6

2.

Subjects, Status, and Cut-Off of Discovery [Rule 26(f)(3)(B)1

The parties anticipate that there will be various issues for which discovery

7 will be needed, including both procedural matters (e.g., personal jurisdiction) and 8 substantive matters. Defendants' believe that discovery should be stayed until the 9 Court issues a ruling on their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. As 10 set forth above, Plaintiffs disagree, and they believe that they are entitled to begin 11 taking substantive discovery, as well. 12 13 14 15 The parties propose that discovery cut-off should be set in December 2012.

3.

Disclosure or Discovery of Electronically Stored Information [Rule 26(f)(3)(C)1

The Parties agree to preserve all discoverable evidence, including

16 electronically stored information. The Parties do not anticipate any issues with 17 respect to the disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information at this 18 time. 19 20 21

4.

Claims of Privilege or of Protection of Trial-Preparation Materials [Rule 26(f)(3)(D)1

The parties do not anticipate any issues with respect to claims of privilege or

22 of protection of trial-preparation materials at this time. However, Defendants intend 23 to assert the reporter's privilege, which Plaintiffs do not believe applies here. 24 25

5.

Limitations on Discovery [Rule 26(f)(3)(E)1

Defendants maintain that only discovery relevant to the pending Motion to

26 Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction should be permitted unless s or until that 27
///

28 Motion were to be denied. Plaintiffs disagree and believe that they should be
299284.2.doc

CV11-10118 GHK (Ex) 3 JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE REPORT PURSUANT TO RULE 26(f)

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 31

Filed 03/28/12 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:325

1 permitted to conduct substantive discovery, as well. 2 Otherwise, the Parties do not believe that there need to be any limitations

3 placed on discovery beyond the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the applicable 4 Local Rules. 5 6 6. Expert Disclosures [L.R. 26-1 (0 -1

The Parties propose that expert disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) of the

7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed by October 2012. 8 9 7. Any Other Orders that the Court Should Issue [Rule 26(f)(3)(F)1

The Parties have not identified any other orders the court should order under KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP Michael J. O'Connor Andrew W. DeFrancis By Andrew W. DeF .ncis Attorneys for Plaintiffsu 4 ZK Productions Inc. and Horizon Alternative Television Inc. BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC D. Bradley Kizzia By

10 Rule 26(c) or Rule 16(b) or (c) at this time. 11 DATED: March 27, 2012 12 13 14 15 16 17 DATED: March 27, 2012 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
299284.2.doc

D. 07.d4Folirr Stephen Carbone Attorneys for I and Reality Steve, LLC

der .APist__If

DATED: March 27, 2012

LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY Gregg A. Farley By Gregg A. Farley Attorneys for Defendants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC

CV11-10118 GHK (Ex) 4 JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE REPORT PURSUANT TO RULE 26(f)

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 31

Filed 03/28/12 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:326

1 permitted to conduct substantive discovery, as well. 2 Otherwise, the Parties do not believe that there need to be any limitations 3 placed on discovery beyond the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the applicable 4 Local Rules. 5 6 8 9 6. Expert Disclosures fL.R. 26-1 all The Parties propose that expert disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) of the Any Other Orders that the Court Should Issue (Rule 26(f)(3)(F)l

7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed by October 2012. 7. The Parties have not identified any other orders the court should order under KELLEY DRYE & WARREN Michael J. O'Connor Andrew W. DeFrancis By Andrew W. DeFrancis Attorneys for Plaintiffs NZK Productions Inc. and Horizon Alternative Television Inc. BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC D. Bradley Kizzia By D. Bradley Kizzia Attorneys for Defendants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC DATED: March 28, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY Gregg Ap arley By regg Farley Attorneys for Defendants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC

10 Rule 26(c) or Rule 16(b) or (c) at this time. 11 DATED: March 28, 2012 12 13 14 15 16 17 DATED: March 28, 2012 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
299284.2.doc

LLP

CV11-10118 GHK (Ex) 4 JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE REPORT PURSUANT TO RULE 26(fi