Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al

Filing 226

RESPONSE re 221 Order to Show Cause by Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company LP. (Seitz, Adam)

Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al

Doc. 226

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 226

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. Plaintiff, vs. VONAGE HOLDINGS, CORP., VONAGE AMERICA, INC. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 05-2433-JWL

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff, Sprint Communications Company L.P. hereby provides its response to the Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 221). As noted in the Court's Order, the time period for responding to Vonage's Objections is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Order, at 1. Because Vonage's Objections refer to dispositive issues, Sprint calculated its deadline for responding pursuant to the time period set forth in Rule 72(b), which provides that "[a] party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In calculating this 10 day period, Sprint relied on Rule 6, which governs the computation of time prescribed by Rule 72. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Because "the period of time prescribed or allowed [in Rule 72] is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation." Id. Additionally, because Sprint believed that Vonage's service fell under Rule 5(b)(2)(D), Rule 6(e) provides that "3 days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under subdivision (a)." Id. at 6(e).

1
2507496v1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 226

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 2 of 3

Calculating its 10 day deadline to respond under Rules 6(a) and 72, Sprint determined that the Rule 6(a) time to respond was June 12, 2007. Pursuant to Rule 6(e), Sprint added 3 additional days to this deadline, which resulted in the calculation of a final deadline of June 15, 2007. Sprint docketed this deadline immediately upon receipt of Vonage's Objections and, pursuant to its docketed deadline, is filing concurrently herewith its Response to Vonage's Objections. Sprint apologizes for any confusion or delay its calculation of the deadline may have caused, and appreciates the opportunity to file its Response to Vonage's Objections. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: June 15, 2007 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. /s/ Adam P. Seitz B. Trent Webb, KS Bar No. 15965 Adam P. Seitz, KS Bar No. 21059 Eric A. Buresh, KS Bar No. 19895 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2613 816-474-6550 Telephone [phone] Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

2
2507496v1

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 226

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 15th day of June 2007, a copy of the above and foregoing was e-filed with the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification to the following: Don R. Lolli Patrick J. Kaine Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle P.C. 4420 Madison Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Patrick D. McPherson Patrick C. Muldoon Barry Golob Duane Morris LLP 1667 K. Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1608 Attorneys for Defendants Vonage Holdings Corp. and Vonage America, Inc. /s/ Adam P. Seitz _________________ Attorney for Sprint Communications Company L.P.

2507496v1