Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC v. Kennedy

Summary

Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC is suing Kennedy Technology, LLC, Kennedy Technologies MK, and Samuel Kennedy for copyright infringement in federal court in New York. The specific work or content at issue is not identified in the court records. The case involves allegations that the defendants unlawfully reproduced or distributed copyrighted material owned by the plaintiff.

Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.

Coverage vs reality meter

Cause

17:101 Copyright Infringement

Entities in this case

Parties

Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC (plaintiff) Kennedy Technology, LLC (defendant) Kennedy Technologies MK (defendant) Samuel Kennedy (defendant) Kyle-Beth Hilfer (mediator)

Docket entries

1. 2026-03-29

   Status Report Order

2. 2026-03-20

   Order on Motion to Stay

3. 2025-12-20

   Order on Motion to Adjourn Conference

4. 2025-10-21

   Report of Mediation(Settled/Unsettled)

5. 2025-04-12

   Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

6. 2025-04-05

   Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney

7. 2025-02-05

   ORDER. Defendants are directed to file any opposition to the Motion to Compel at ECF No. 73 on or before February 12, 2025. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 2/5/2025. (DN)

8. 2024-12-02

   ORDER. Pursuant to this Court's Electronic Order dated November 22, 2024, Plaintiff was directed to file a letter brief in support of its proposed motion for a protective order on or before November 29, 2024. To date, no such filing has been made. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to comply on or before December 4, 2024. Defendants are directed to file their response in opposition on or before December 9, 2024. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 12/2/2024. (DN)

9. 2024-11-22

   ORDER. In the Motion for Hearing at ECF No. 65, the parties report that they have "reached an impasse" in finalizing a protective order concerning "confidential and highly confidential information, including source code, i.e., trade secrets." (ECF No. 65 at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to limit review and access of its trade secrets and source code to attorneys and experts, however, Defendants contend Defendant Samuel Kennedy should also have access. (Id.) "Protective orders that limit access to certain documents to counsel and experts only are commonly entered in litigation involving trade secrets and other confidential research, development, or commercial information." Quotron Sys., Inc. v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 37, 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); see also Hildreth Real Est. Advisors LLC v. Galvis, No. 23-CV-9372 (DEH), 2024 WL 3318124, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2024); Jane St. Grp., LLC v. Millennium Mgmt. LLC, No. 24 CIV. 2783 (PAE), 2024 WL 2833114, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2024) ("The disclosure of confidential information on an 'attorneys' eyes only' basis is a routine feature of civil litigation involving trade secrets."). However, "[t]o enter a protective order with an 'attorneys' eyes only' provision, a court must balance the risk of economic harm to the producing party against the requesting party's need for the information." Id. (internal citations omitted). To this end, the Court finds it necessary for the parties to brief the issue of Defendant Samuel Kennedy's access to Plaintiff's "highly confidential information, including source code, i.e., trade secrets." Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file a letter brief in support of its proposed motion for a protective order on or before November 29, 2024. Defendants are directed to file their response in opposition on or before December 6, 2024. At the upcoming Status Conference previously set for December 16, 2024 at 11:30 AM before the undersigned via the Court's Video Zoom, the parties should be prepared to address the arguments raised in the letter briefs. The Status Conference set for November 26, 2024 at 11:00 AM is hereby cancelled. Counsel for Plaintiff is further advised that Plaintiff is permitted to file its Rule 11 Motion at any time that it deems appropriate. The undersigned's August 12, 2024 ruling was made solely for the purposes of addressing Plaintiff's request for a protective order regarding certain discovery requested by Defendants. See ECF No. 59 at 9 (citing Covell v. Chiari & Ilecki, LLP, No. 12CV660A, 2013 WL 3539192, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. July 11, 2013)) ("[T]he 'issue for this [M]otion for a [P]rotective Order is whether [all discovery related to Defendant's counterclaim for copyright infringement] [is] essential for [Defendants] to respond to [Plaintiff's anticipated] summary judgment [and/or Rule 11] motion[s] to warrant denial of the [M]otion for the [P]rotective Order.'"). The timing of the filing of the Rule 11 Motion had no impact on the undersigned's ultimate denial of Plaintiff's Motion for the Protective Order. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 11/22/2024. (DN)

10. 2024-11-18

    ORDER. The in-person Status Conference before the undersigned set for November 25, 2024 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1020 to address the issues raised at ECF No. 65 has been RESCHEDULED for November 26, 2024 at 11:00 AM and CONVERTED to a Zoom Conference. The Court will email the Zoom invitation closer to the conference date. This conference is a public proceeding, and all are welcome to attend via telephone or via video. If you would like to receive the Zoom invitation, please contact Judge Wicks' Courtroom Deputy at (631) 712-5625. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 11/18/2024. (DN)

11. 2024-11-15

    ORDER granting 65 Motion for Hearing. The parties are directed to appear for an in-person Status Conference before the undersigned on November 25, 2024 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1020 to address the issues raised at ECF No. 65. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 11/15/2024. (DN)

12. 2024-11-15

    Order on Motion for Hearing

13. 2024-10-30

    ORDER granting 64 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The parties' request for an extension of time to complete discovery is granted. The Court adopts the parties' proposed discovery schedule at ECF No. 64 as follows: (i) completion of document production by December 31, 2024; (ii) completion of depositions by March 15, 2025; (iii) completion of fact discovery by April 15, 2025; (iv) designation of expert witnesses by April 15, 2025; and (v) completion of expert discovery by June 15, 2025. The Status Conference set for December 16, 2024 at 11:30 AM before the undersigned via the Court's Video Zoom otherwise remains in place. See Electronic Order dated September 9, 2024. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 10/30/2024. (DN)

14. 2024-09-09

    ORDER re 60 Request for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The parties' request for an extension of time to complete discovery is granted. The Court adopts the parties' proposed discovery schedule at ECF No. 60 . A Status Conference has been set for December 16, 2024 at 11:30 AM before the undersigned via the Court's Video Zoom. The Court will email the Zoom invitation closer to the conference date. This conference is a public proceeding, and all are welcome to attend via telephone or via video. If you would like to receive the Zoom invitation, please contact Judge Wicks' Courtroom Deputy at (631) 712-5625. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 9/9/2024. (DN)

15. 2024-09-09

    Order(Other) AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings

16. 2024-07-18

    ORDER. The parties are directed to appear for a Status Conference before the undersigned set for August 13, 2024 at 11:00 AM via the Court's Video Zoom to address the Motions at ECF Nos. 53, 55, and 57 and associated filings. The Court will email the Zoom invitation closer to the conference date. This conference is a public proceeding, and all are welcome to attend via telephone or via video. If you would like to receive the Zoom invitation, please contact Judge Wicks' Courtroom Deputy at (631) 712-5625. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 7/18/2024. (DN)

17. 2024-06-06

    ORDER denying 53 Motion for Protective Order without prejudice and with leave to renew. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of this Court, and the undersigned's Individual Practice Rules concomitantly require that parties meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve discovery disputes before formally initiating motion practice. See Individual Practice Rule 3.A; Local Civil Rules 26.4, 37.3(a); Fed R. Civ. P. 37(a). This command is repeatedly reaffirmed -- perhaps because the meet and confer requirement obviates unnecessary judicial handholding and encourages parties to raise only genuine disputes that could not otherwise be resolved with good faith and civility. See Excess Ins. Co. v. Rochdale Ins. Co., No. 05-CV-10174, 2007 WL 2900217, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2007) ("The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to resolve discovery matters without the court's intervention to the greatest extent possible. Only those matters that remain unresolved after serious attempts to reach agreement should be the subject of a [discovery motion]."). It is apparent from the instant application that the parties have not made a meaningful effort to meet and confer prior to raising this dispute with the Court. Accordingly, the parties are hereby directed to "meet, in person or by telephone, and make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute by determining... what the requesting party is actually seeking; what the discovering party is reasonably capable of producing that is responsive to the request; and what specific genuine issues, if any, cannot be resolved without judicial intervention." See Excess Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2900217, at *12 (explaining the meet and confer requirement). If genuine disputes remain after the parties have met and conferred, Plaintiff may renew its motion. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 6/6/2024. (DN)

18. 2024-05-21

    Order on Motion to Stay

19. 2024-02-08

    Case No Longer Referred

20. 2024-02-06

    Case Assigned/Reassigned AND Case Referred to Magistrate Judge

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.