Defendant's Attorney: Donna Tobin

Description: Allentown, Pennsylvania intellectual property lawyer represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendants on copyright infringement theories.


Plaintiffs Dawn Cutillo and Infinity Health, LLC (“IH”) have alleged federal and state law claims against Defendants David Cutillo, Infinity Health Advisors LLC, (“IHA”), and intervenor IHA Distribution, LLC (“IHAD”). Plaintiffs' claims arise out of a dispute with Defendant David Cutillo, Dawn Cutillo's older brother, regarding their joint commercialization and franchising of the natural hormone balancing methodologies Dawn Cutillo developed. Defendants have filed a Motion for Sanctions, alleging Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint for the improper purpose of harassing and intimidating IHA management, and that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding their Copyright Infringement claim had no evidentiary merit. Defendants have also accused Plaintiffs of abusing the discovery process through the improper use of subpoenas. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion will be denied without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 21, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, wherein they alleged Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) contained factual allegations that lacked evidentiary and factual support, and accused Plaintiff Dawn Cutillo of filing the SAC for the improper purpose of

2

retaliation, and harassment and intimation of Defendants. See Defs. Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 99; see also Second Amend. Compl., ECF No. 67 (“SAC”). In support of their motion, Defendants cited three videos made by Dawn Cutillo and an email sent from Dawn Cutillo to IHA management, all of which they contend are proof of Dawn Cutillo's improper purpose. See ECF No. 99, Ex's. A-D. Plaintiffs responded on November 14, 2022, claiming the Court's disposition of Plaintiffs' Copyright Infringement claim in the SAC is irrelevant to Defendants' motion, and the content of the video exhibits does not support the conclusion that Dawn Cutillo filed this action for the purposes of retaliation, harassment or intimidation, nor do the videos warrant any sanctions. See Pls. Resp. to Defs. Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 101. On January 17, 2023, during a status conference with the parties, Defendants accused Plaintiffs of abusing the discovery process in this case through the improper use of subpoenas. The Court directed Defendants to seek leave to supplement their pending Motion for Sanctions.

Defendants moved for leave to supplement their motion for sanctions, and their Supplemental Brief was deemed filed on February 27, 2023. See Defs. Supp. Brief, ECF No. 120. In their supplemental brief, Defendants accused Plaintiffs of issuing subpoenas to Meta Platforms, Inc. and Verizon that were outside the scope of permissible discovery in an effort to investigate a defamatory Instagram post. See id. Defendants also supplemented their motion with emails sent from Dawn Cutillo to IHA management regarding the removal of IHA managers, and a threat to pull the IHA license. See id. at Ex's. E-F. Plaintiffs filed their response on March 27, 2023, arguing the subpoenas had a legitimate purpose and the emails sent from Dawn Cutillo to IHA management were not improper. See Pls. Resp. to Defs. Supp. Brief, ECF No. 125.
Cutillo v. Cutillo (E.D. Pa. 2023)

Outcome: 08/02/2023 148 RESPONSE in Opposition re 143 MOTION for Sanctions (Renewed) filed by Dawn Cutillo, Infinity Health LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed form of Order)(TANEY, FRANCIS) (Entered: 08/02/2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: