ACI Worldwide Corp. v. MasterCard Technologies, LLC et al

Filing 299

ORDER regarding MOTION 297 ACI Worldwide's Request for Expedited Call with Court, or in the Alternative, to Lift the Stay filed by ACI Worldwide Corp. It is Ordered that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied, in part, at this time as set forth above. The remainder of the issues set forth in the motion for reconsideration will be addressed at a later date. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (SLP)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ACI WORLDWIDE CORP.,
Plaintiff,
V.
MASTERCARD TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, and MASTERCARD
INTERNATIONAL, Incorporated,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV31

ORDER

On January 19, 2016, the undersigned entered an order which modified the protective
order in this case. The January 19, 2016 order allowed Plaintiff to request in camera review
by the state court judge of certain documents produced in this action. On January, 21, 2016,
the undersigned, upon request by non-party Baldwin, Hackett & Meeks, Inc. (“BHMI”)
entered an order staying implementation of the undersigned’s January 19, 2016 order,
pending a ruling on a yet-to-be filed objection to the order.
On January 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed, what the undersigned construes as a motion for
reconsideration, requesting that the stay be lifted and that the Court hold an expedited
telephone call with the parties involved. (Filing 297.) Plaintiff explained that a hearing is
set to be held in the state court action today and that the stay will prevent Plaintiff from
presenting the subject documents to the state court judge at the hearing.
The undersigned understands Plaintiff’s position on the matter and the impact the stay
may have on the state court proceedings. However, the time frame that has been placed upon
the Court is simply unreasonable. The Court recognizes that this time crunch is not all
Plaintiff’s doing, and the undersigned is well-aware that this time table could very well be
a tactical ploy by BHMI. Nonetheless, this is not a matter that can be rushed and must be
fully briefed, supported by law, and presented to the Court in a reasonable manner.

Given the current state of affairs, the undersigned has no choice but to deny Plaintiff’s
request for a telephone conference. There simply is no room on the Court’s schedule to hold
such a telephone call. The question of whether the stay should be lifted will be considered
at a later date.
The undersigned has no objection to Plaintiff explaining the current state of affairs of
the federal proceeding to the state court judge. But again, the state court judge must handle
his proceedings as he sees fit and should not feel bound by anything happening in the federal
court action.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied, in part, at this
time as set forth above. The remainder of the issues set forth in the motion for
reconsideration will be addressed at a later date.
DATED January 22, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2