Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Pipeline Prods. v. Madison Cos., LLC

United States District Court for the District of Kansas

April 29, 2019, Decided; April 29, 2019, Filed

Case No. 15-4890-KHV

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Suzanne Land Documents (ECF No. 441). Therein, plaintiffs Pipeline Productions, Inc., Backwood Enterprises, LLC, OK Productions, Inc., and Brent Mosiman (collectively "Pipeline") renew their motion to compel defendants The Madison Companies, LLC and Horsepower Entertainment, LLC (collectively "Madison") to produce documents to and from Suzanne Land found on Madison's July 5 and 6 privilege logs. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Pipeline's motion as to Privilege Log Entry Nos. 126, 129, [*2]  130, 132, 139-148. The court also grants the motion insofar as it has conducted an in camera inspection of Defendants' Privilege Log Entry Nos. 127 and 134-136. The motion is denied in all other respects.

I. BACKGROUND

The court has previously summarized the facts giving rise to this case. See Pipeline Prods., Inc. v. Madison Cos., LLC, No. 15-4890-KHV, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41048, 2019 WL 1206786, at *1 (D. Kan. Mar. 14, 2019). The case arises out of the parties' business dealings relating to the Thunder on the Mountain country music festival ("Thunder") in 2015. According to the Complaint, Pipeline is a well-known producer of live music festivals, including Thunder. Madison is a venture capital firm that was looking to invest in Pipeline's music festival business. In 2014-2015, the parties engaged in various business dealings trying to structure a deal, but that deal fell through shortly before the Thunder festival was scheduled to occur in 2015. Pipeline was financially devastated, was forced to cancel Thunder 2015, and filed this lawsuit. In this lawsuit, the parties dispute whether and the extent to which they incurred legally binding obligations to one another before the deal fell through. Pipeline asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary [*3]  duty, fraud, and tortious interference. Madison seeks a refund of the money it advanced for Thunder 2015.

Pipeline previously moved to compel Madison to produce the documents at issue in this motion to compel. (ECF No. 302.) At the time, this case was assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge K. Gary Sebelius, who denied Pipeline's motion without prejudice to refiling a renewed motion directed to this particular category of documents. See Pipeline Prods., Inc., No. 15-4890-KHV, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41048, 2019 WL 1206786, at *3. Since then, Madison produced certain documents, narrowed its claim of privilege to 154 documents, and served a supplemental privilege log and supporting declarations. Pipeline now moves to compel Madison to produce the remaining documents that appear on the supplemental privilege log. The subject documents all involve Ms. Land, who was at all relevant times an independent contractor of Madison.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71601 *; 2019 WL 1900341

PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, v. THE MADISON COMPANIES, LLC, et al., Defendants and Counterclaimants.

Prior History: Pipeline Prods. v. Horsepower Entm't, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49899 (D. Kan., Apr. 13, 2016)

CORE TERMS

documents, communications, legal advice, privilege log, independent contractor, argues, attorney-client, purposes, emails, public relations, privilege claim, consultants, authorized representative, advice, waived, in camera, festival, lawsuit