Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc.

Filing 904

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 871 Peerless Network, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Peerless's Third Requests for Admission; granting in part and denying in part 878, S-902 Peerless Network, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Peerless's Fifth Interrogatories. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 2/3/2023. (RMN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LOCAL ACCESS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-236-WWB-EJK

PEERLESS NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on the following:
1. Peerless Network, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Peerless’s Third
Requests for Admission (“RFA MTC”) (Doc. 871; sealed exhibits at Doc. S892), filed January 27, 2023. Local Access responded in opposition. (Doc. 893.)
2. Peerless Network, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Peerless’s Fifth
Interrogatories (“Interrogatory MTC”) (Doc. 878; sealed motion & exhibits at
Doc. S-902.) Local Access responded in opposition. (Doc. 894.)
The RFA MTC
In the RFA MTC, Peerless seeks to compel Local Access to answer or provide
better responses to RFAs 151–152, 154–155, 156–157, 158, and 160. The Court finds
as follows:
As to RFAs 151–152, Local Access’s objection is sustained. Peerless should
define the phrases “homing tandem services” and “end user.”
As to RFAs 154–155, the Court finds Local Access’s response sufficient. Local

Access answered the question presented. Therefore, the Court will not require Local
Access to provide better responses.
As to RFAs 156–157, Peerless asked about a “refusal,” not a “failure to
provide”; therefore, Local Access should answer as to “refuse,” but may also clarify
as to the failure to identify and failure to provide. Thus, the Court will require Local
Access to provide better responses to these two RFAs.
As to RFA 158, Local Access’s objection is overruled. The Court will require
Local Access to provide an answer regarding the services covered by the language of
the contract referenced.
As to RFA 160, Local Access’s objection is overruled. Local Access did not
object to this RFA on the basis of an undefined term. The Court will require Local
Access to provide an answer regarding the services covered by the language of the
contract referenced.
The Interrogatory MTC
In the Interrogatory MTC, Peerless moves to compel responses to its Fifth
Interrogatories for Numbers 13, 15, 22, and 23. The Court finds as follows:
As to Number 13, Local Access’s objection is sustained as to the question asked.
As to Number 15, Local Access’s answer is sufficient. The Court will not require
Local Access to provide a better answer.
As to Number 22, Local Access’s objection is overruled. With discovery closing
February 3, 2023, this request is not premature and Local Access should be aware of
the basis for any affirmative defenses to the Counterclaim. Local Access should answer

-2-

the Interrogatory, but may seek leave to amend or supplement its answer once the
Court rules on the motions to dismiss.
As to Number 23, Local Access’s objections are overruled. Local Access should
answer whether it contends that the service(s) provided by the third party to Local
Access pursuant to the third party’s contract is/are the same service(s) provided by
Peerless to Local Access pursuant to the agreement between the parties.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Peerless Network, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Peerless’s Third
Requests for Admission (Doc. 871) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART as set forth herein.
2. Peerless Network, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Peerless’s Fifth
Interrogatories (Doc. 878, Doc. S-902) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as set forth herein.
3. Local Access shall serve all discovery ordered pursuant to this Order on
Peerless on or before February 10, 2023.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 3, 2023.

-3-