CoreTel Virginia, LLC v. Verizon Virginia, LLC et al
Filing
127
MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: 95 MOTION in Limine or to Compel by CoreTel Virginia, LLC, 97 MOTION to Seal Motion for Leave to Amend and Exhibits 1 and 4 by Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc., MCI Communications Services, Inc., MCImetro Access Transmis sion Services LLC, Verizon Business Global LLC, Verizon South, Inc., Verizon Virginia, LLC, 100 MOTION to Amend/Correct Answer and Counterclaim by Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc., MCI Communications Services, Inc., MCImetro Access Transmission S ervices LLC, Verizon Business Global LLC, Verizon South, Inc., Verizon Virginia, LLC, 104 Emergency MOTION to Seal DE 96 by CoreTel Virginia, LLC, 105 Emergency MOTION to Seal Exhibits 2 and 3 to Verizon's Motion for Leave to Amend by Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc., MCI Communications Services, Inc., MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC, Verizon Business Global LLC, Verizon South, Inc., Verizon Virginia, LLC, 106 MOTION to Compel by Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc., MCI Co mmunications Services, Inc., MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC, Verizon Business Global LLC, Verizon South, Inc., Verizon Virginia, LLC and 115 MOTION to Seal by Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc., MCI Communications Services, Inc., MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC, Verizon Business Global LLC, Verizon South, Inc., Verizon Virginia, LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan on 1/25/2013. (stas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
CORETEL VIRGINIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
VERIZON VIRGINIA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 1:12cv741
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter came before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine or to Compel (Dkt. 95); plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to
Seal (Dkt. 104); defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal
Verizon’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer and Counterclaims
(Dkt. 97); defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer and
Counterclaims (Dkt. 100); defendants’ Emergency Motion to Seal
Exhibits 2 and 3 to Verizon’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt.
105); defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 106); and defendants’
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits D and E to
Verizon’s Brief in Opposition to CoreTel’s Motion in Limine or
to Compel (Dkt. 115).
First, the Court finds that it is appropriate to, at least
at this point, protect confidential business information of the
plaintiff, and therefore adequate grounds exist to grant the
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Verizon’s Motion for Leave
1
to Amend its Answer and Counterclaims (Dkt. 97). Similarly, the
Court finds that plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Seal (Dkt.
104); defendants’ Emergency Motion to Seal Exhibits 2 and 3 to
Verizon’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. 105); and defendants’
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits D and E to
Verizon’s Brief in Opposition to CoreTel’s Motion in Limine or
to Compel (Dkt. 115) are appropriate, necessary and should be
granted.
As to Verizon’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer and
Counterclaims (Dkt. 100), the Court finds that it is in the
interest of justice that all claims and defenses be brought
before the Court.
The Court further finds that there is no
prejudice to the plaintiff in permitting these amendments,
especially in light of the Court’s earlier order allowing
plaintiff to amend its answer.
shall be granted.
Therefore, defendants’ motion
Plaintiff must file an answer to defendants’
amended counterclaims by February 1, 2013.
As to plaintiff’s
claim that discovery would be necessary from Verizon as to its
own switched access services on the basis of functional
equivalence, the Court rejects that assertion.
The issue in the
case is CoreTel’s practices and billing, not Verizon’s.
As to plaintiff’s Motion in Limine or to Compel (Dkt. 95),
the Court finds that in light of the recent expert report
provided, the motion is largely moot.
2
However, Verizon must
provide all materials and data upon which the expert relied in
making his report to plaintiff by Feb. 1, 2013.
Lastly, Verizon again brings a Motion to Compel (Dkt. 106).
CoreTel has had repeated problems throughout the discovery
process in producing documents in a format that is in compliance
with the discovery plan.
Indeed, it has been strongly suggested
by the Court that plaintiff employ an outside vendor to handle
its document production, which it appears plaintiff finally did.
Upon so doing, the last documents were produced in a format that
was problem-free.
In light of the ongoing problems with the
prior production, the Court finds that remediation is necessary
to quickly complete discovery.
Therefore, the Court will order
that plaintiff remediate all document productions up to and
including the December 17, 2012 production by the same outside
vendor immediately.
However, because the Court finds that
plaintiff did attempt to comply with the discovery plan in good
faith, the Court orders that the cost thereof shall be shared
equally by plaintiff and defendants.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
3
ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2013.
/s/
THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Alexandria, Virginia
4