PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS, INC., BACKWOOD ENTERPRISES, LLC, OK PRODUCTIONS, INC., and BRETTMOSIMAN, Plaintiffs,
v.
THE MADISON COMPANIES, LLC, and HORSEPOWER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendants.
United States District Court, D. Kansas.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Pipeline Productions, Inc., Backwood Enterprises, LLC, OK Productions, Inc. & Brett Mosiman, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack D. McInnes, McInnes Law LLC.
The Madison Companies, LLC & Horsepower Entertainment, LLC, Defendants, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. George, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Ira G. Bibbero, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Russell F. Wolpert, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy A. Shultz, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Whitney L. Casement, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP.
The Madison Companies, LLC & Horsepower Entertainment, LLC, Third Party Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. George, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Ira G. Bibbero, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Russell F. Wolpert, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy A. Shultz, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Whitney L. Casement, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP.
OK Productions, Inc, Third Party Defendant, represented by Jack D. McInnes, McInnes Law LLC.
The Madison Companies, LLC & Horsepower Entertainment, LLC, Counter Claimants, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. George, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Ira G. Bibbero, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Russell F. Wolpert, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy A. Shultz, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Whitney L. Casement, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP.
Backwood Enterprises, LLC, Pipeline Productions, Inc., Brett Mosiman & OK Productions, Inc., Counter Defendants, represented by Jack D. McInnes, McInnes Law LLC.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
K. GARY SEBELIUS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the court upon the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Discovery Requests and Requests for Sanctions. (ECF No. 285.) For the following reasons, this motion is granted in part and denied in...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
