Judge Limits Discovery of Morgan & Morgan Clients, Ads
Rosenbaum & Associates has sought old Morgan & Morgan commercials and client information in a false advertising suit.
December 15, 2017 at 01:28 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge has rejected a Philadelphia lawyer's argument that he needs more information about personal injury firm Morgan & Morgan's advertisements and client relationships.
In an order filed Friday morning, U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Jeff Rosenbaum's motion to compel, filed earlier this week. Rosenbaum's suit alleges that Orlando-based Morgan & Morgan has been running deceptive advertisements, causing a decline in new clients at Rosenbaum & Associates.
In his order, Kearney acknowledged that he had granted Rosenbaum's motion for expedited discovery, related to his request that Morgan & Morgan ads be pulled from television while the case is pending. But, the order said, arguing for that injunction does not require information on past ads and old referral relationships.
“Plaintiffs do not explain how information from before Aug. 1, 2017, is relevant to show defendants are now causing imminent irreparable harm,” Kearney wrote in a lengthy footnote. “We cannot enjoin history.”
Kearney noted that the requested information might be relevant at trial, but said it is not relevant to the injunction motion set to be heard Jan. 4.
Rosenbaum had argued that old ads are relevant to the suit because they have an impact on current commercials, which is why federal courts often require corrective ads when a campaign is found to be misleading.
But lawyers for Morgan & Morgan, in a response filed Thursday, said Rosenbaum's motion left out communication between the parties about discovery, and misrepresented the data Morgan & Morgan has already provided. Exhibits to the response included a letter explaining that information from August 2017 and afterward was sufficient for discovery on the injunction motion.
The defendants said much of the information Rosenbaum seeks is irrelevant, as the defendants have not denied referring cases to other attorneys. And with regard to requests for information about specific clients, Morgan & Morgan said it does not want to provide that information without the clients' direction.
“Plaintiff is on a fishing expedition, essentially seeking 'full case' discovery in the guise of a motion for preliminary injunction,” Morgan & Morgan said in its response.
Gaetan Alfano of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, who is representing Morgan & Morgan, declined to discuss Friday's order. Ryan Cohen of Rosenbaum & Associates, who is representing his firm, did not respond to a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250