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

Filing 140

RESPONSE in opposition re 139 Supplemental MOTION to supplement Rule 56(f) Motion for Enlargement of Time to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Xcentric Ventures, LLC, Badbusinessbureau.org, Ed Magedson. (Speth, Maria)

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

Doc. 140

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

Document 140

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 1 of 3

Maria Crimi Speth, #012574 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JABURG & WILK, P.C. 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 [phone] Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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. Defendants Xcentric Ventures,

Case No: 2:04-CV-47-ftm-34-SPC DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY TIME PURSUANT TO RULE 56(f), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

LLC,

("Xcentric"),

and

Ed

Magedson

("Magedson") (collectively, the "Defendants") respectfully respond to Plaintiff's Supplement to Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff still has not indicated how delay will allow Plaintiff to present any evidence against the motion for summary judgment. See, Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 931 (11th Cir. 1989. Plaintiff has never had any basis upon which to allege that Defendants authored the content on Rip-off Report concerning Plaintiff. Indeed, this Court may recall that Plaintiff's original complaint did not allege that Defendants authored the reports, only that Defendants published the reports. Plaintiff later amended and alleged that Defendants authored the content, but only because this Court ruled that

10297-8/ASK/MCS/607402_v2

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Document 140

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 2 of 3

the Communications Decency Act precluded Defendants from being held liable without such an allegation and proof. In the face of a summary judgment motion, Plaintiff is still unable to offer even a scintilla of evidence that Defendants authored the content at issue. Instead, it continually asks for more time to do so. The depositions that Plaintiff claims it needed to respond to the motion for summary judgment are complete. The depositions did not provide

evidence against the summary judgment motions. This Court should not allow delay for the sake of delay. Plaintiff offers no basis for the Court to believe the delay will allow any substantive opposition to the Summary Judgment Motion. Xcentric incorporates by reference the detailed legal arguments set forth in its Response to Plaintiff's 56(f) Motion. Plaintiff's 56(f) Motion should be denied. DATED this 27th day of August, 2007. JABURG & WILK, P.C.

s/Maria Crimi Speth Maria Crimi Speth, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 27th day of August, 2007, I caused the attached document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF Registrants: Steven Neil Lippman Shawn L. Birken Scott W. Rothstein Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler Suite 1650 401 E Las Olas Blvd Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorneys for Plaintiff 2
10297-8/ASK/MCS/607402_v2

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

Document 140

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 3 of 3

Brian J. Stack Stack, Fernandez, Anderson, Harris & Wallace, P.A. 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 950 Miami, FL 33131-3255 Attorneys for Defendant s/Debra Gower

3
10297-8/ASK/MCS/607402_v2