Netquote Inc. v. Byrd
Netquote Inc. v. Byrd
Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00630-DME-MEH NETQUOTE INC, a Colorado corporation, Plaint iff, v. BRANDON BYRD, an internet user making use of the IP Addresses 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199, and MOSTCHOICE.COM, INC., a Georgia corporation, Defendants. SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO SUBMIT EXPERT REPORTS NetQuote, Inc. (" etQuote" respectfully moves for an extension of time to submit its N ) opening expert reports. In support of its motion, it states as follows: 1. NetQuote seeks a ten-day extension of time for it to provide its expert disclosures
and for MostChoice to provide its rebuttal expert disclosures. NetQuote previously requested an extensio n of time for 30 days after certain discovery was produced for it to provide its opening expert disclosures. By order dated August 20, 2007, this Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, providing NetQuote until September 21, 2007 to provide its expert disclosures and resetting other case deadlines. 2. NetQuote seeks an additional 10-day extension, to and including October 1, 2007,
for it to provide its expert disclosures because its damages expert needs the additional time to synthesize and analyze recently produced discovery, and otherwise to complete his analysis of
Page 2 of 4
the facts in this case. NetQuote' damages expert has explained to undersigned counsel that his s analysis has been delayed, not only because of the recently produced discovery materials, but also because of a deposition subpoena that he received in another matter. He has assured undersigned counsel that the ten additional days requested will be sufficient for him to be able to complete his analysis, subject only to any future supplements to his report based on additional discovery produced in the case. 3. Undersigned counsel contacted counsel for MostChoice about this request and
counsel agreed that, if this request is granted, MostChoice should be permitted to provide its rebuttal expert disclosures on or before November 1, 2007. 4. Pursuant to D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 7.1.A, NetQuote states that it has consulted with
counsel for MostChoice and that MostChoice does not oppose this request. 5. Pursuant to D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 6.1.D, undersigned counsel certifies that a copy
of this Motion is being served upon NetQuote. 6. This is the second request by NetQuote for an enlargement of time to provide
expert disclosures. WHEREFORE, NetQuote respectfully requests that the Court enter an order re-setting the deadline for NetQuote to provide its initial expert disclosures to October 1, 2007 and resetting the time for MostChoice to file its rebuttal expert disclosures to November 1, 2007.
Page 3 of 4
Dated: September 12, 2007
Respect fully submitted, _/s David W. Stark_______ David W. Stark FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 3200 Wells Fargo Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 607-3500 / Fax: (303) 607-3600 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Daniel D. Williams Teresa Taylor Tate FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 1900 Fifteenth Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Tel: (303) 447-7700 / Fax: (303) 447-7800 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 12, 2007, the foregoing SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE EXPERT REPORTS was served via CM/ECF filing on: Ryan L. Isenberg, Esq. ISENBERG & HEWITT, P.C. 7000 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Bldg 15, Suite 100 At lanta, GA 30328 email@example.com and was served via U.S. mail, postage paid, addressed to the following persons at the given addresses: Craig Shine NetQuote, Inc. 1860 Blake St. Denver, CO 80202 s/_Daniel D. Williams______
Second MOTION For Extension of Time to Submit Expert Reports
by Counter Defendants Netquote Inc., Netquote Inc., Plaintiff Netquote Inc.. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Stark, David)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?