Defendant Dynasty Marketing Group continues its “pattern of noncompliance” with Marriott International’s discovery requests in the trademark infringement lawsuit to curb robocallers from impersonating Marriott telemarketers, said Marriott’s filing Wednesday (docket 1:21-cv-00610) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria in support of its third motion to compel discovery (see 2211150002). Marriott pressed again for sanctions against Dynasty for its “continued failure to comply” with the court’s instructions. Dynasty has failed to provide “separate written responses” to each Marriott discovery request, despite the court’s earlier warnings to so, said the filing. It also failed to respond “substantively and fully to requests to which no objections were filed,” instead “cherry-picking a few documents for production,” it said. Dynasty also failed to produce a witness for deposition, it said. The court permitted Dynasty “multiple opportunities to cure known discovery deficiencies, but its responses and productions remain deficient, and Dynasty’s refusal to provide a witness for deposition has continued,” it said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Anderson for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria will use Thursday’s final pretrial conference in Marriott’s lawsuit to thwart robocallers from impersonating Marriott telemarketers to hear arguments on the company’s third motion to compel discovery from defendant Dynasty Marketing Group, said his order Monday (docket 1:21-cv-00610). Also on Thursday’s agenda is Marriott’s Nov. 4 motion to bifurcate the two groups of remaining defendants so it can better complete service on entities that are based in Mexico, said Anderson’s order. “Marriott has expended great effort and expense to effectuate service on the Mexican defendants, not only through the Hague Convention, but through separate investigations into whether individuals associated with the Mexican defendants could be located and served in the United States,” said Marriott’s Nov. 4 memorandum in support of the motion to bifurcate. Without the presence of the Mexican defendants, “Marriott has been hamstrung in its ability to collect discoverable information,” it said. Another defendant, ResortCom International, filed a motion Monday to seal the report of Marriott’s expert witness, Todd Schoettelkotte, “out of an abundance of caution,” to prevent the accidental disclosure of confidential information. “ResortCom believes sealing is appropriate to allow Marriott the time to identify any confidential information it believes exists in the report,” said its motion.

Defendant Dynasty Marketing Group’s “repeated failure to respond fully and completely” to discovery requests and failure to appear at a deposition warrants “the entry of default on liability,” said Marriott International in a memorandum of support for its third motion to compel discovery Friday (docket 1:21-cv-00610). Marriott is suing Dynasty and other defendants, foreign and domestic, in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia to thwart robocallers from stealing Marriott trademarks by impersonating Marriott telemarketers (see 2210070013). Marriott has “suffered prejudice” as a result of Dynasty’s failure to adequately respond to discovery requests, answer questions on discovery topics and attend a “properly noticed” deposition, it said. Dynasty lawyers didn’t comment Monday.

Defendant ResortCom International denies Marriott International’s allegations it violated the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule “in any way,” said its answer Thursday (docket 1:21-cv-00610) to Marriott’s amended complaint. Marriott’s trademark infringement lawsuit alleges multiple defendant robocallers impersonated Marriott telemarketers. ResortCom’s answer was due Oct. 5 but filed late due to “miscommunication” among the defendant’s lawyers who cited "excusable neglect" as the reason. ResortCom denies it's a telemarketer and denies it has “participated in or assisted in” any telemarketing activities or robocalls, said its answer. “Marriott lacks standing to assert its TSR claim against ResortCom because no actions or inactions by ResortCom caused Marriott to suffer more than $50,000 in damages,” it said. It asked the court to dismiss the claim with prejudice and award ResortCom recovery of its attorney’s fees and court costs.

A jury in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin awarded $46.77 million in statutory damages Thursday to several record labels for the willful contributory infringement by internet service provider Grande Communications Networks of 1,403 copyrighted works, a verdict form shows (docket l:17-cv-00365). The labels sued Grande in April 2017, alleging its internet customers had engaged in more than 1 million infringements of copyrighted works over BitTorrent systems, including tens of thousands of “blatant infringements by repeat infringers.” The lawsuit alleged Grande turned a blind eye to the wrongdoing, refusing to take “any meaningful action to discourage this continuing theft, let alone suspend or terminate subscribers who repeatedly commit copyright infringement through its network.” Grande didn’t respond Friday to requests for comment.

U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika for Delaware agreed to the joint stipulation of Averon and AT&T to extend to Jan. 9 the deadline for AT&T to respond to Averon’s complaint (see 2211020001), said a text order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-01341). Digital identity verification platform Averon alleges AT&T misappropriated its trade secrets. AT&T denies the allegations and says Averon mounted the lawsuit as a publicity stunt.

AT&T and digital identity verification platform Averon agreed to extend to Jan. 5 the deadline for AT&T to respond to Averon’s complaint alleging that AT&T misappropriated its trade secrets (see 2210120040), said a stipulation (docket 1:22-cv-01341) submitted by lawyers for both sides Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Delaware. AT&T has blasted Averon’s lawsuit as a publicity stunt (see 2210130012).

Marriott International reached a settlement agreement with defendant Whisl Telecom in Marriott’s trademark infringement lawsuit to thwart robocallers from impersonating Marriott telemarketers, according to a stipulation (docket 1:21-cv-00610) signed Tuesday by Senior U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria. Trenga canceled a hearing planned for Friday to address Marriott-Whisl discovery disputes. Only days before the settlement, Marriott and Whisl were at an impasse over discovery that sparked an escalating war of words (see 2210280020). Settlement terms weren't disclosed.

Spanish-language movie producer Carlos Vasallo turned down use of YouTube's copyright management tools but is now trying to force the service to provide a nonexistent version of Content ID tailored to his preferences, defendants Google and YouTube told the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Monday in an answer to an amended copyright infringement complaint by Vasallo's Athos Overseas. The defendants in docket 1:21-cv-21698 said Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbors protect them from infringement claims. They said by not requesting the removal from YouTube of allegedly infringing content, Vasallo and Athos failed to mitigate damages. Counsel for the plaintiffs didn't comment Tuesday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Anderson for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria signed an order Friday (docket 1:21-cv-00610) granting Marriott International’s motion to compel discovery from Dynasty Marketing Group, a defendant in its trademark infringement lawsuit that seeks to thwart robocallers from impersonating Marriott telemarketers (see 2210240001). Anderson’s order directed Dynasty to provide “full and complete responses” to Marriott’s discovery requests by Friday at noon, and said its failure to do so would risk a default judgment “on the issue of liability.” Anderson, in a separate order Friday, denied Marriott’s motion to compel discovery from another defendant, Whisl Telecom, and granted in part and denied in part Whisl’s motion to compel discovery from Marriott. The discovery disputes between Marriott and Whisl have evolved into an escalating battle of words (see 2210280020). Anderson scheduled a status conference for Friday to resolve any remaining disputes.