Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307 Filed 03/19/17 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RUSS McCULLOUGH, et al., : NO. 3:15-cv-01074-VLB


: LEAD CASE
Plaintiffs, :
:
VS. :
:
WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, :
INC., :
:
Defendant. :

JOSEPH M. LAURINAITIS, et al., : NO. 3:16-CV-01209-VLB


: CONSOLIDATED CASE
Plaintiffs, :
:
VS. :
:
WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, :
INC., et al., :
:
Defendants. : MARCH 19, 2017

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN


OVERSIZED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO WWES MOTION TO DISMISS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) and Vincent K.

McMahon (McMahon) (collectively, Defendants) hereby submit this response

to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Oversized Memorandum in Opposition to

WWEs Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 303). Defendants

submit this response in order to correct the record in view of Plaintiffs distortion

of the facts and misrepresentation of Defendants position in their motion.


Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307 Filed 03/19/17 Page 2 of 7

1. On December 19, 2016, WWE filed a motion for leave to file an

oversized brief of not more than 95 pages in support of its motion to dismiss the

First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 259).1

2. On December 20, 2016, the Court granted WWEs motion for leave to

file an oversized brief in support of its motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 260).

3. Defendant McMahon did not seek leave to file an oversized brief in

support of the motion to dismiss the claims asserted against him.

4. Defendants also did not seek leave to file an oversized brief in

support of their motion for sanctions regarding the First Amended Complaint.

5. Consistent with the Courts order, on December 23, 2016, WWE filed

a 95-page memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 267).

6. On December 23, 2016, Defendant McMahon filed a brief in support

of his motion to dismiss within the normal page limits.

7. On December 23, 2016, Defendants filed a brief in support of their

motion for sanctions within the normal page limits.2

8. On Monday, March 13, 2017, Plaintiffs moved for an extension of time

until March 17, 2017 to file their briefs in opposition to the three motions (Doc.

No. 299), which Defendants consented to and the Court granted (Doc. No. 301).

1
WWEs counsel made multiple inquires to Plaintiffs counsel to ascertain
their position on the motion but Plaintiffs counsel never responded to those
inquires prior to the filing of the motion. Plaintiffs counsel only indicated that
they would consent to the motion after it was filed.
2
Plaintiffs motion for leave incorrectly states that Defendants filed a 55-
page motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 303 3). Defendants motion for sanctions
was within the 46-page limit prescribed by Judge Bryant, exclusive of a table of
contents and table of authorities. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(a)(5).

2
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307 Filed 03/19/17 Page 3 of 7

At that time, Plaintiffs did not mention or request any consent to filing an

oversized brief.

9. On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 3:38 p.m., shortly before the close of

business on the deadline for filing their opposition briefs, Plaintiffs counsel sent

their initial communication regarding oversized briefs, and it suggested that they

intended to file all three of their opposition briefs in excess of the page limits.

Dear Counsel:

We are getting ready to FILE, and Atty. Norris has brought to my


attention that we need a Motion to file excess pages, as you
requested, and of course we granted.

At the time, we asked that we be granted a reciprocal waiver. I think


to are looking at about 90-100 +/- for the general opposition to
dismiss, AND the Rule 11 opposition and maybe 50-65 for the VKM-
RICO Opposition.

Please advise ASAP. Apologies for the lateness of the request, it


apparently was missed.

Exhibit A (Email from S. James Boumil, Esq. dated March 17, 2017.)

10. On Friday, March 17, 2017, at 6:03 p.m., Defendants counsel

responded to the email from Plaintiffs counsel as follows:

Mr. Boumil:

First, your late request violates Local Rule 7(a)(5), which requires
that any motion seeking permission to file a brief in excess of the
page limit shall be filed at least 7 days before the deadline for the
filing of the brief. We therefore do not know whether we can
effectively consent to a violation of the Local Rules.

Second, despite stating that you are getting ready to file, your email
does not identify the exact number of pages that you are requesting
for each of the three briefs. Your email could be construed as
making a request for a combined total of anywhere from 140 pages
to 265 pages for the three briefs. It is therefore unclear what you are

3
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307 Filed 03/19/17 Page 4 of 7

asking us to consent to. In any event, we do not believe that a page


extension in excess of the one we received is necessary.

Id. (Email from Jeffrey P. Mueller, Esq. dated March 17, 2017.)

11. On March 17, 2017, at 8:20 p.m., Plaintiffs counsel responded to the

email from Defendants counsel as follows:

Thank you for the reply.

I don't fathom the lack of clarity in my page count. I could not be


exact because as you might imagine there were some additional
contributions from our team and my office is not doing the final
formatting.

I understand your position on consent. Of course there is no


requirement to object .

Id. (Email from S. James Boumil, Esq. dated March 17, 2017).

12. Plaintiffs counsel had no further communication with Defendants

counsel after that email and never did clarify the number of pages they were

requesting for each of their briefs prior to filing their motion.

13. On March 17, 2017, at 11:52 p.m., Plaintiffs counsel filed their motion

for leave to file an oversized brief (Doc. No. 303).3

14. Plaintiffs did not disclose that their motion was filed in violation of

the Local Rules or offer any justification for their failure to comply with them. See

D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(a)(5) (Any motion seeking permission to depart from these

limitations shall be filed at least seven (7) days before the deadline for the filing of

3
After filing their motion for leave and prior to receiving any order from the
Court on their motion, Plaintiffs counsel proceeded to file three briefs, including
one oversized brief that they did not even seek permission to file in their motion.
See Paragraphs 23-26, infra.

4
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307 Filed 03/19/17 Page 5 of 7

the memorandum at issue. A motion for permission not in compliance with this

Rule will ordinarily be denied.) (effective January 18, 2017).4

15. Contrary to the suggestion in the email to Defendants counsel,

Plaintiffs motion sought leave to file an opposition of not more than 85 pages in

opposition to WWEs motion to dismiss.

16. Contrary to the suggestion in the email to Defendants counsel,

Plaintiffs motion did not seek leave to file an oversized brief in opposition to

McMahons motion to dismiss.

17. Contrary to the suggestion in the email to Defendants counsel,

Plaintiffs motion did not seek leave to file an oversized brief in opposition to

Defendants motion for sanctions.

18. Plaintiffs motion nevertheless distorted Defendants position by

stating: Plaintiffs consented to WWEs oversized brief, though here Defendants

refused to consent to our filing of an oversized brief. (Doc. No. 303 4.)

19. Plaintiffs counsel failed to advise the Court that Defendants had

stated that it was unclear whether they could consent to a motion that was filed in

violation of the Local Rules.

20. Plaintiffs counsel failed to advise the Court that their email seeking

Defendants position on their motion did not correspond to the request made in

their actual motion.

4
This rule became effective on January 18, 2017 and therefore did not
apply at the time WWE filed its motion for leave to file an oversized brief in
support of its motion to dismiss.

5
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307 Filed 03/19/17 Page 6 of 7

21. Plaintiffs counsel failed to advise the Court that their email had

suggested that they intended to file all three of their opposition briefs far in

excess of the page limits under the rules and in excess of the page limits given

for Defendants briefs.

22. Plaintiffs counsel also failed to advise the Court that Defendants

sought clarification concerning the exact number of pages that Plaintiffs were

requesting for each of their three opposition briefs and that Plaintiffs never

provided such clarification prior to filing their motion.

23. On March 17, 2017, between 11:55 p.m. and 11:58 p.m., Plaintiffs filed

their three briefs in opposition to Defendants motions.

24. The brief that Plaintiffs filed in opposition to WWEs motion to

dismiss was 80 pages (Doc. No. 305).

25. The brief that Plaintiffs filed in opposition to Defendants motion for

sanctions was 17 pages (Doc. No. 306).

26. Although Plaintiffs motion did not seek leave to file an oversized

brief in opposition to McMahons motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs opposition to that

motion was 52 pages, in excess of the 46 page limit (Doc. No. 304). Plaintiffs

opposition to McMahons motion to dismiss was erroneously styled as an

Opposition to Defendants Motion for Sanctions.

Defendants leave the decision as to whether to grant Plaintiffs motion for

leave to file an oversized brief to the discretion of the Court but have submitted

this response so that decision can be made on a complete and accurate record.

6
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307 Filed 03/19/17 Page 7 of 7

DEFENDANTS WORLD WRESTLING


ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and VINCENT K.
MCMAHON,

By: /s/ Jerry S. McDevitt


Jerry S. McDevitt (pro hac vice)
Curtis B. Krasik (pro hac vice)
K&L GATES LLP
K&L Gates Center
210 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 355-6500
Fax: (412) 355-6501
Email: jerry.mcdevitt@klgates.com
Email: curtis.krasik@klgates.com

Jonathan B. Tropp (ct11295)


Jeffrey P. Mueller (ct27870)
DAY PITNEY LLP
242 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: (860) 275-0100
Fax: (860) 275-0343
Email: jbtropp@daypitney.com
Email: jmueller@daypitney.com

Their Attorneys

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on March 19, 2017, a copy of foregoing was filed
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing.
Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts
electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as
indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing
through the Courts CM/ECF System.

/s/ Jeffrey P. Mueller _________


Jeffrey P. Mueller (ct27870)

7
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307-1 Filed 03/19/17 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT A
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307-1 Filed 03/19/17 Page 2 of 5

Mueller, Jeff

From: Boumil Law <sjboumil@boumil-law.com>


Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:20 PM
To: Mueller, Jeff
Cc: Jerry.McDevitt@klgates.com; kon@kyroslaw.com; erica@mirabellallc.com;
chrisgil@sidgilreath.com; BLeydon@tooherwocl.com; Tropp, Jonathan B.;
Curtis.Krasik@klgates.com
Subject: Re: Excess Pages

Thank you for the reply


I don't fathom the lack of clarity in my page count. I could not be exact because as you might imagine there
were some additional contributions from our team and my office is not doing the final formatting.
I understand your position on consent. Of course there is no requirement to object .
Have a pleasant weekend.
Jim Boumil

On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:03 PM, Mueller, Jeff <jmueller@daypitney.com> wrote:

Mr. Boumil:

First, your late request violates Local Rule 7(a)(5), which requires that any motion seeking permission to
file a brief in excess of the page limit shall be filed at least 7 days before the deadline for the filing of the
brief. We therefore do not know whether we can effectively consent to a violation of the Local Rules.

Second, despite stating that you are getting ready to file, your email does not identify the exact number
of pages that you are requesting for each of the three briefs. Your email could be construed as making a
request for a combined total of anywhere from 140 pages to 265 pages for the three briefs. It is
therefore unclear what you are asking us to consent to. In any event, we do not believe that a page
extension in excess of the one we received is necessary.

Jeffrey P. (Jeff) Mueller | Attorney at Law | Attorney Bio


<image001.jpg>

242 Trumbull Street | Hartford CT 06103-1212


t (860) 275 0164 | f (860) 881 2625 | m (203) 444 5207
jmueller@daypitney.com | www.daypitney.com
BOSTON | CONNECTICUT | FLORIDA | NEW JERSEY | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON,
DC <image002.jpg> <image003.png> <image004.jpg>

From: sjboumil@boumil-law.com [mailto:sjboumil@boumil-law.com]


Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Mueller, Jeff; Jerry.McDevitt@klgates.com; kon@kyroslaw.com; erica@mirabellallc.com;
chrisgil@sidgilreath.com; BLeydon@tooherwocl.com
Cc: Tropp, Jonathan B.; Curtis.Krasik@klgates.com
Subject: RE: Excess Pages

1
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307-1 Filed 03/19/17 Page 3 of 5
Dear Counsel:

We are getting ready to FILE, and Atty. Norris has brought to my attention
that we need a Motion to file excess pages, as you requested, and of course
we granted.

At the time, we asked that we be granted a reciprocal waiver. I think to are


looking at about 90-100 +/- for the general opposition to dismiss, AND the
Rule 11 opposition

and maybe 50-65 for the VKM-RICO Opposition.

Please advise ASAP. Apologies for the lateness of the request, it apparently
was missed.

Thank you,
Jim Boumil

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:02:55 +0000, "Mueller, Jeff" wrote:

Mr. Boumil:

We have no objection to your request for an extension of time until Friday.

Jeffrey P. (Jeff) Mueller | Attorney at Law | Attorney Bio

242 Trumbull Street | Hartford CT 06103-1212


t (860) 275 0164 | f (860) 881 2625 | m (203) 444 5207
jmueller@daypitney.com | www.daypitney.com
BOSTON | CONNECTICUT | FLORIDA | NEW JERSEY | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON,
DC

From: sjboumil@boumil-law.com [mailto:sjboumil@boumil-law.com]


Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:42 PM
To: Jerry.McDevitt@klgates.com; kon@kyroslaw.com; erica@mirabellallc.com;
chrisgil@sidgilreath.com; BLeydon@tooherwocl.com

2
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307-1 Filed 03/19/17 Page 4 of 5
Cc: Mueller, Jeff; Tropp, Jonathan B.; Curtis.Krasik@klgates.com
Subject: Re: Required Consultastion

Counsel:
I am writing to request an extension of the filing date of our
various oppositions from 3/15/17 to 3/17/17 (Wednesday to
Friday). The reasons are as follows:

1) First, as the primary author of about 1/2 of the Oppositions(s) I


have been seriously hampered over the last two week by a
miserable virus. During our first trip to
the Court the week before last, the room was "spinning" and I
was very debilitated. That began a few days before my
appearance in Court and has continued through now.
I will spare you a rendition of the symptoms. NO, I did not obtain
confirmation from a physician. My son went to one and was given
a "Z-Pac" which accomplished nothing.
Therefore, frankly, I am behind on my part of this despite three
days this last week working till near midnight under very
oppressive symtomatology.

2) Next, Tuesday/Wednesday are scheduled to involve a major


blizzard in Massachusetts/New Hampshire and I believe CT. We
will not open the office and I will
thus have no access to formatting, typing, scanning and other
help and devices and my paralegal while I am marooned at home.
Thus two days are shot.

Therefore it would appear that two days is not unreasonable and


justified by the facts. In return if you required an additional
several days on your Reply, we would certainly agree.

Given the late hour ( I just kept going on to see how far I might
progress) I respectfully request a reply by tomorrow (Monday
3/13/17) by 11:00 AM as I will need to file an emergency Motion
requesting the extension, which will include an affidavit of the
above facts. Apologies for a weekend e-mail but circumstances
dictate the timing and I hope that some of you will receive this on
your phones as most of us do with e-mail.

Please advise.

S. James Boumil
978-458-0507

3
Case 3:15-cv-01074-VLB Document 307-1 Filed 03/19/17 Page 5 of 5

This message contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for
the use of the addressee(s) named above. Any disclosure, distribution, copying or use of the
information by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender by immediate reply and delete the original message. Thank you.

**********************************************************************************************************

This message contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use
of the addressee(s) named above. Any disclosure, distribution, copying or use of the information by
others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by
immediate reply and delete the original message. Thank you.

**********************************************************************************************************