The Trial Lawyers College v. Gerry Spences Trial Lawyers College at Thunderhead Ranch et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
__________________________________
THE TRIAL LAWYERS COLLEGE, a
nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
vs.
GERRY SPENCES TRIAL LAWYERS
COLLEGE AT THUNDERHEAD RANCH, a
nonprofit corporation, and GERALD L.
SPENCE, JOHN ZELBST, REX PARRIS,
JOSEPH H. LOW, KENT SPENCE, and
DANIEL AMBROSE, individuals, and
GERRY SPENCE METHOD AT
THUNDERHEAD RANCH, INC., a nonprofit
corporation,
Defendants,
and JOHN JOYCE,
Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff, and
Third-Party Plaintiff,
vs.
F WARRIORS,
Third-Party Defendant.
Case Number: 1:20-CV-00080-JMC-GJF
.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY ORDER
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
THIS MATTER is before the Court pursuant to the parties’ disputes over whether TLC
must produce four categories of documents purportedly withheld as privileged but never logged.
See ECFs 385 at 2; 389 at 3; Joint Report Letter (July 5, 2022) (“Letter”) at 5-9. This is one of
several issues that the parties submitted to the Court for informal resolution pursuant to Local Rule
Case 1:20-cv-00080-JMC Document 396 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 3

2
37.1(b).1
In the parties’ Letter, the Spence Defendants identified four categories of documents that they
alleged TLC has withheld as privileged but has never logged as such. With respect to the first two
categories, the Court ORDERS as follows:2
(1) Documents generated before this litigation commenced that reflect communications
among the Sloan group of TLC directors, including with Attorney Patrick Murphy.
For the period April 14–May 13, 2020, TLC shall submit for in camera inspection not
later than July 25, 2022, all responsive documents in its possession. By that same
date, TLC shall also update and disclose to the Spence Defendants (with a copy to the
Court) its Privilege Log to include all the documents in this in camera production as to
which it asserts a privilege.3
(2) Documents concerning the trademark on which this case is based: The Court notes
that it has never been provided a copy of any request for production in which the Spence
Defendants sought this information from TLC. As set forth in the parties’ Letter, the
Spence Defendants’ description of this category is vast: “Documents concerning the
trademark on which this case is based.” Taking into account (a) the breadth of that
request, (b) the fact that the trademarks date back to 2012, the burdens associated with
TLC searching for and assembling any additional information from so long ago, (c) the
1 All other pending issues besides those decided herein or during the hearing itself remain under advisement and will
be the subject of future orders.
2 In a discovery conference set for July 19, 2022, the Court will entertain additional argument on the remaining two
categories (documents relating to TLC’s insurance coverage and documents associated with executive sessions of the
TLC Board of Directors).
3 The Court will decide later whether to order additional briefing on this category of the Spence Defendants’ discovery
request.
Case 1:20-cv-00080-JMC Document 396 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 3

3
other information and witnesses already available to the Spence Defendants relating to
the true ownership of the two trademarks in question, (d) and the fact that the Spence
Defendants did not raise this issue with the Court until the end of the discovery period
despite having formally put at issue the ownership of the trademarks as early as
December 2, 2020 (see First Amended Answer to Second Amended Complaint and
Counterclaims/Third-Party Claims [ECF 108]), the Court finds and concludes that any
additional production associated with the trademarks would not be proportional to the
needs of this case.
SO ORDERED.
________________________________________
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:20-cv-00080-JMC Document 396 Filed 07/18/22 Page 3 of 3