No. 03 C 3454 Page 4

disclose the names, addresses and telephone numbers, if known, of individuals likely to have
discoverable information. The party must also state the nature of the individual’s pertinent
information. Plaintiff's disclosures satisfy these requirements. While plaintiff's disclosures
do not include individuals’ occupations or home addresses, this information is not required.

As defendant highlights, many of the names that appear on plaintiff’s disclosure list do
not appear in plaintiff's amended responses to defendant’s interrogatories, This may be
because plaintiff did not know of these individuals at the time it created its amended responses
or because none of these individuals has information related to defendant’s interrogatories,
most of which ask plaintiff to identify people who have information specific to the defendant.
It just may be, as defendant’s attorney surmised in a letter to opposing counsel (attached to
defendant’s Second Motion to Compel as Exhibit C), that “most or all [of plaintiff's] evidence
will be circumstantial.” However, if individuals listed in plaintiff's supplemental disclosures
should have been included in response to any of defendant’s interrogatories, then plaintiff
must inform defendant.

Finally, defendant argues that documents, which plaintiff references, have not been
produced or properly identified. Defendant cites three records that have been discussed but
not produced: defendant’s DIRECTV account history (referenced in plaintiff's first response
to defendant’s interrogatory no.1); defendant’s purchase of DIRECTV equipment from Radio
Shack; and defendant’s membership in internet forums on piracy. None of these examples
supports defendant’s contention that plaintiff has failed to produce requested documents.
Plaintiff's amended response to interrogatory no.1 makes no claim that defendant had a
DIRECTV account history, so it appears no such record exists. As for both defendant’s

purchase from Radio Shack and his involvement with internet forums on piracy, documents


No, 03 C3454 Poged

witnesses. In its response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff updated its responses to numerous
interrogatories to reflect these new filings. Plaintiff noted that its objections to several of
defendant’s interrogatories for prematurely seeking information on experts were now moot.
DIRECTV listed its two experts, Michael Barr and William Gatliff, as witnesses with opinions
on a variety of issues addressed in defendant’s interrogatories, Plaintiff also updated its
information on ICG, Inc., the company that provided documents evidencing defendant’s
membership in a piracy forum, Plaintiff's responses now included the names of ICG, Inc.’s
operators, Lacey Walker, Michael Stoabs, and Jim Emerson.

Defendant argues that even after plaintiff's amended responses and supplemental
filings, it has failed to cure its incomplete discovery responses. First, defendant maintains that
plaintiff’s objections are often improper and preclude defendant from determining whether
plaintiff's responses are complete. Though plaintiff objected to many interrogatories to the
extent they prematurely called for information on expert witnesses, its amended responses
proceeded to answer the questions and included a statement that any expert reports filed
would supplement its response. Plaintiff's approach to this issue was neither unreasonable nor
confusing, Furthermore, now that plaintiff has filed its Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures on expert
witnesses, this issue is moot. As plaintiff has provided its list of witnesses and expert witnesses,
defendant’s arguments regarding interrogatories nos. 26 and 27 are also moot. However,
plaintiff must answer interrogatory no. 25, to which it provided no response in its amended
responses. All other arguments regarding plaintiff's objections are without merit.

Defendant also claims that plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures fail to remedy the
deficiencies in its responses because the disclosures are incomplete and do not correspond with

specific interrogatories. Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires parties to


Rd

No. 03 C3454 Page S

were produced that appear to relate to those allegations. However, neither the document
containing 2 “Forum Summary” (attached to plaintiff's amended response to requests for
production and inspection) nor the strip of information indicating Pickert purchased
DIRECTV satellite equipment at Radio Shack (attached to plaintiff's supplemental
disclosures) gives any indication where the documents came from or who created them.
Plaintiff must provide defendant with some context for these documents. Plaintiff must also
produce the CD-ROM of documents and exhibits that it refers to in its amended response to
defendant’s request for production and in its response to defendant’s second motion to compel,
if defendant does not have a copy.
CONCLUSION

Defendant’s second motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff

must supplement its responses to defendant’s interrogatories and requests as described above.

No attorney’s fees are to be awarded.

JAMES B. MORAN
nior Judge, U. S. District Court

Saab : ] , 2004,


mh Milfte Onder For (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Neeagierts | James B. Moran | St

CASE NUMBER 03 C 3454 DATE 9/7/2004
CASE DIRECTYV, INC. vs. STEVEN PICKERT
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party Biling the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented. ]

MOTION:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
@M oa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.}
(2) Qo Brief in support of motion due
(3) og Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) Qo Ruling/Hearing on setfor __at
6) im Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___setfor__at
(6) QO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on____—sesetfor_ at.
(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for}on___—_att
(8) Q [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto___——sat__—
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to)
COFRCP4(m) (C)Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP4i(a)(1) OFRCP41(a)(2).
ao) [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Defendant’s second motion to

compel is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff must supplement its responses to defendant's

interrogatories and requests. No attorney’s fees are to be awarded.

ap @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.}

‘No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required,

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

of | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

ua deputy 00 sh Hd L~ daS nll)
intial Datehtime received in, t| 4
central ltrs OffTeeTM mang deputy tile



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DOCKETED
DIRECTY, INC., ) Sep 8 2004
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 03 C3454 Sep
) -
STEVEN PICKERT, ) ’ 2004
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc. brought this action against defendant Stephen Pickert alleging
federal statutory violations and conversion for intercepting satellite signals with a decoding
device. Defendant now brings his second motion to compel complete responses to his discovery
requests. After defendant filed his first motion to compel, plaintiff submitted amended
answers to defendant’s interrogatories and request for production. Defendant argues that these
amended answers are deficient. He maintains that plaintiff's objections are improper and
unsupported, and complete responses are not provided. As relief, defendant requests that the
court dismiss the case or, in the alternative, order plaintiff to provide complete responses and
award defendant reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. Defendant’s motion is granted in
part and denied in part.

In its amended responses, plaintiff provided the following information. In late
February 2000, defendant purchased a DIRECTV system from a Radio Shack in Yorkville,
Tinois, and informed the store that his address was 1641 Waterford Road, North Aurora,
Illinois 60542, and his telephone number was (630) 879-0580. After purchasing the equipment,

defendant never activated a DIRECTV account in his name, nor was an account opened for

-{ 4


No, 03 C3454 Page 2

that address. DIRECTV has purchase records indicating that on February 20, 2001,
defendant ordered access devices, “two Cobalt Emulators and two MK2 Unloopers with SUZ
code,” from a Canadian distributer. The distributer shipped the devices to defendant at
40W980 Seavey Rd., Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554. The following month, defendant ordered
two more MK2 Unloopers with SU2 Code from the same distributor, which were also shipped
to Pickert’s Sugar Grove address,

DIRECTV informed defendant that there are four people who have information on the
shipment of access devices to him, and his receipt of them: Mark McHugh, operator of the
Canadian distributor that supplied the devices; Scott Madvig, operator of the shipping facility
that mailed the devices to defendant; Lance McGlothin, a FedEx representative; and
defendant, DIRECTV identified these four witnesses in response to many of defendant’s
interrogatories regarding individuals who have information on defendant’s use of the devices.
DIRECTV also informed defendant of records from ICG, Iuc., establishing his membership
in an internet forum dedicated to discussions of piracy of satellite television programming. In
response to several interrogatories concerning individuals who may have information
regarding defendant’s alleged piracy of satellite programming, DIRECTV stated that residents
or visitors to defendant’s home may be aware of his activities, The only resident or visitor of
which plaintiff indicated specific knowledge is Barbra Ferrill, who opened a DIRECTV
account at defendant’s Sugar Grove address and phone number on September 14, 2003, after
this suit was filed.

Following defendant’s filing of his second motion to compel, plaintiff supplemented its
Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure of individuals who may have relevant discoverable information and

the nature of their information. Plaintiff also filed its Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures on expert