Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01537/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01537-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Best Western International, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John Doe, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1537-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On October 15, 2008, the parties inundated the Court with filings. For reasons

explained below, all of the motions filed on October 15, 2008 (Dkt. ##426-428, 437-438,

440, 442-462, 465-467, 469-471) are denied. The parties shall file revised pretrial motions

in accordance with this order.

Plaintiff brought this action because it believed various individuals were disparaging

it and violating confidentiality obligations through Internet postings. After considerable

litigation, the Court allowed Plaintiff to discover the identities of the individuals who had

posted comments on the web. Thus commenced a bitter and expensive battle between

competing factions within the Best Western business family. Just over two years later, this

case has 475 docket entries. Many of these entries are the result of excessive litigation. 

The Court does not permit parties to file discovery motions. Instead, the Court

requires parties to place a telephone call to the Court if they are unable to resolve discovery

disagreements. Most civil cases are litigated to a conclusion without a call being placed to

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 477 Filed 10/20/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

the Court. Where discovery is difficult, two or three calls may be necessary. Following a

few conferences with the Court, most parties understand the Court’s approach to discovery

and can move forward with an efficient resolution of the case. The parties in this case placed

15 discovery calls to the Court, with most calls involving multiple issues. The calls subsided

only after the Court finally warned the parties that it would begin imposing attorneys’ fees

in every dispute. See Dkt. #297. 

During the course of discovery, counterdefendants Best Western and members of its

board of directors filed a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims asserted by

James Dial. Filings in connection with this motion totaled more than 1,119 pages. See Dkt.

##200-01, 287-94, 296, 323-25, 337. The Court entered an order on May 12, 2008, granting

the motion in part and denying it in part. Dkt. #342. The order eliminated Dial’s claims for

abuse of process, breach of fiduciary duty against all directors except Roman Jaworowicz,

and aiding and abetting abuse of process. Id. The only claims that remained were intentional

interference based on a relatively brief removal of Dial’s hotel from the Best Western

reservation system and breach of fiduciary duty against director Jaworowicz. See Dkt. #90.

The Court assumed that litigation excesses would end once discovery was completed.

The Court was wrong. The parties filed 6,497 pages of material in connection with

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court considered rejecting these excessive

filings, but concluded that summary judgment was likely the primary battleground for the

parties. The Court decided it could best assist the parties in resolving this case by wading

into their arguments and providing a reasoned decision. On September 5, 2008, the Court

entered a 25-page order. Dkt. #414. The order substantially reduced the size and complexity

of this case as well as the damages sought by Plaintiff. On a count-by-count basis, the order

had the following effect:

Count 1: Breach of contract against the Dials and Unruh – eliminated with

respect to Nidrah Dial, eliminated with respect to the use of Best

Western equipment and disclosure of Best Western confidential

information, remains with respect to the use of Best Western name on

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 477 Filed 10/20/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

website.

Count 2: Breach of contract against governor bloggers – moot because Best

Western named no governor bloggers as defendants.

Count 3: Breach of implied covenant against the Dials and Unruh – eliminated.

Count 4: Breach of implied covenant against governor bloggers – moot because

Best Western named no governor bloggers as defendants.

Count 5: Breach of implied contract against the Dials and Unruh – eliminated.

Count 6: Breach of implied contract against governor bloggers – moot because

Best Western named no governor bloggers as defendants.

Count 7: Breach of fiduciary duty against governor bloggers – moot because

Best Western named no governor bloggers as defendants.

Count 8: Defamation against all Defendants – eliminated with respect to 50

statements made or published by Defendants and any statements

Defendants did not create or develop; remains with respect to 13

statements purportedly made by the Dials.

Count 9: Tortious interference against all Defendants – eliminated.

Count 10: Tortious interference with contract against Furber – eliminated.

Damages: Excessive member termination damages eliminated, outside counsel

fees eliminated, employee time and out-of-pocket expenses remain.

As a result of these rulings, only four relatively modest claims remain: Plaintiff’s

claim for breach of contract based on use of the Best Western name on the website,

Plaintiff’s claim for defamation against the Dials with respect to 13 blog entries (entries that

clearly were not the primary focus of discovery or the summary judgment motions), Dial’s

claim for intentional interference based on being dropped briefly from the reservation system,

and Dial’s breach for fiduciary duty claim against director Jaworowicz. Compared to the

case as it was originally pled and litigated, only a fraction of the claims and damages remain.

 The Court assumed that the case would settle or be tried in a relatively simple

proceeding. The Court again was wrong. On October 15, 2008, the parties filed 2,939 pages

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 477 Filed 10/20/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The parties seem to think that motions that do not seek to limit evidence are not

motions in limine subject to the Court’s three-page limit. “In limine” is a Latin phrase

meaning “at the outset.” It is not restricted to motions seeking to limit evidence, and includes

any matter presented before trial for the Court’s resolution. Parties may not exceed the

Court’s three-page limit without first obtaining permission from the Court.

- 4 -

of material. These include a 125-page joint proposed final pretrial order, 31 motions in

limine, and three longer motions that should have been motions in limine.1 In a remarkable

feat of microscopic dissection, the parties sliced four modest claims into 51 separate factual

disputes and 30 issues of law. Plaintiffs listed 52 potential witnesses and Defendants listed

69. Plaintiff listed 434 exhibits (with 175 pages of objections to Defendants’ exhibits), and

Defendants listed 320 exhibits (with 63 pages of objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits). The

parties claim the need for 102 hours of trial time, which would require a five-week trial.

These filings are wasteful in the extreme. The Court is not a forum for the parties to

expend every possible dollar seeking to litigate every conceivable issue, no matter how

insubstantial. The Court will no longer tolerate the excesses of this case.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. All motions filed on October 15, 2008 (Dkt. ##426-428, 437-438, 440, 442-

462, 465-467, 469-471) are denied.

2. Trial in this matter shall be limited to 24 hours, 12 hours for Plaintiff and 12

hours for Defendant. Opening and closing statements, direct examination, and

cross-examination shall be counted against the parties’ allotted time.

3. On or before November 7, 2008, the parties shall file a joint proposed final

pretrial order no longer than 30 pages in length that complies fully with the

Court’s local rules on type size and pagination. The proposed order shall

identify no more than 10 factual issues to be resolved at trial. 

3. The parties shall be limited to five motions in limine per side, not to exceed

three pages in length. The parties are advised that any motion filed in advance

of trial is deemed to be a motion in limine. The parties should confer before

filing motions in limine to see if the subject of the motion is truly in dispute.

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 477 Filed 10/20/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

If any party files a motion that the Court finds to be unnecessary, or a response

that clearly lacks merit, the Court will award sanctions. 

4. The final pretrial conference scheduled for November 5, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.

is vacated and reset to November 21, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.

5. Prior to trial, the Court will require the parties, with all clients present, to

meet with a magistrate judge at the courthouse for a settlement conference.

DATED this 20th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 477 Filed 10/20/08 Page 5 of 5