Whitney Information, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al

Filing 110

MEMORANDUM in opposition re 109 Motion to expedite Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Answers to Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories filed by Xcentric Ventures, LLC. (Speth, Maria)

Whitney Information, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al

Doc. 110

Case 2:04-cv-00047-MMH-SPC

Document 110

Filed 05/31/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 2:04-cv-47-FtM-29 SPC WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs, v. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC., an Arizona limited liability company; BADBUSINESSBUREAU.ORG, an Arizona limited liability company; and ED MAGEDSON, an individual, Defendants. ____________________________________/ DEFENDANT XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, (Xcentric), hereby opposes Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Answers to Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff has not requested the depositions referenced in the Motion, so the Motion is premature. Plaintiff Whitney Information Network, Inc. ("Plaintiff") has not alleged unusual circumstances that would prejudice Plaintiff if discovery is not expedited. On May 14, 2007, Plaintiff propounded its Third Set of Interrogatories to Xcentric requesting information that, according to Plaintiffs' motion, would allow Plaintiff to schedule depositions. Pursuant to Rule

10297-1/LAR/LAR/589216_v1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:04-cv-00047-MMH-SPC

Document 110

Filed 05/31/2007

Page 2 of 3

26(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., as well as Plaintiff's own instructions included on the Third Set of Interrogatories, Xcentric is allowed until June 18, 2007 to respond. If Plaintiff wants to schedule depositions for Xcentric employees, Plaintiff should request depositions through Xcentric's counsel. Plaintiff has not requested any deposition dates for the employees referenced in Plaintiff's Motion. There is already a time set for the depositions of several Arizona witnesses. Xcentric is cooperating to provide the requested witnesses on the agreed upon dates of August 2-3, 2007. Plaintiff forecasts "possible disputes regarding the discoverability of [the requested] information" or that possibly "some of the employees no longer reside at the last known addresses [such that] Plaintiff would need additional time to track these people down" in order to take depositions while Plaintiff's counsel is in Arizona taking Defendants' depositions. These hypothetical situations have not yet happened. The hypothetical speculations addressed in Plaintiff's Motion do not constitute unusual circumstances that prejudice the Plaintiff. Plaintiff wanted information sooner, Plaintiff should have requested sooner. There is no evidence or likelihood of unusual, prejudicial circumstances Xcentric is willing to discuss whatever depositions Plaintiff wishes to request. Plaintiff cannot show any likelihood that all appropriate Arizona depositions cannot be covered on the same trip. Even if Plaintiff had to make more than one trip to Arizona, that would constitute mere inconvenience, and would not be unusual or materially prejudicial to Plaintiff's case. Conclusion Plaintiff's request to expedite discovery are premature and must be denied for the reasons stated. 2
10297-1/LAR/LAR/589216_v1

If

Case 2:04-cv-00047-MMH-SPC

Document 110

Filed 05/31/2007

Page 3 of 3

Dated: May 31st, 2007. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Maria Crimi Speth Maria Crimi Speth, Esq. E-Mail: [e-mail] Counsel for Defendant XCentric Ventures, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished, by mail, this 31st day of May, 2007, to: Scott W. Rothstein, Esq. 401 East Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1650, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. JABURG & WILK, P.C. By: /s/ Maria Crimi Speth Maria Crimi Speth

3
10297-1/LAR/LAR/589216_v1