![]() ![]() at 2.On October 11, one day after the close of fact discovery, Plaintiff approached Defendants regarding the Stage Front subpoena. Stage Front replied that it was unaware of the deadline, but that it would advise the parties as the deadline approached. Plaintiff responded that the parties had reached an agreement and noted the upcoming discovery deadline on October 10. The email stated that Plaintiff would memorialize an agreement for Stage Front’s review and that Stage Front would pass that agreement onto Defendants for approval. On October 3, Stage Front emailed Plaintiff and carbon copied Defendant. Plaintiff made a proposal on September 27 and submitted a follow-up email on September 30. 252, Exhibit 1, at 1.Plaintiff and Stage Front continued to negotiate the scope of Plaintiff’s document requests. Defendants agreed that “one track” would be best it does not appear that Plaintiff responded. To avoid litigation in the District of Maryland (where Stage Front is located), Stage Front suggested that, after Stage Front and Plaintiff resolved their remaining dispute, Stage Front would share the final agreement with Defendants for their approval. Stage Front’s counsel explained that he had been “recently contacted” by Defendants and that Defendants stated they would be serving a deposition subpoena. 253, Exhibit B.On September 27, Stage Front emailed both Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff further stated that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants could independently serve a subpoena on Stage Front. ![]() Plaintiff updated Defendants on the status of the subpoena. In an email exchange, Defendants indicated that they wanted to participate in discussions regarding the scope of document production and the timing of a deposition. #De bene esse deposition update#at 6-7.On September 26, Defendants asked Plaintiff for an update regarding the Stage Front discovery. The parties engaged in further discussions on September 18, and Plaintiff emailed Stage Front with a proposal to resolve their remaining disputes on September 21. Indeed, on the same day that Plaintiff received Stage Front’s objections, Plaintiff spoke with Stage Front in an effort to resolve their disputes. Plaintiff responded promptly and appears to have engaged in good faith negotiations. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff served a subpoena on Stage Front, and Stage Front filed its objections on September 12. Stage Front’s “autopricer technology” may be relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation. Because Defendants have not demonstrated good cause to reopen discovery, their request is DENIED.BACKGROUNDStage Front is a Maryland corporation engaged in the ticket brokerage business. To prevent undue prejudice, Defendants request leave to obtain de bene esse testimony from Stage Front, or alternatively, to extend the discovery period so that Defendants can depose Stage Front. Defendants state that Stage Front will provide relevant testimony favorable to their defenses at trial. 1 Defendants argue that Plaintiff “slow-walked” its negotiations with Stage Front past the close of fact discovery, thereby preventing Defendants from conducting a deposition. Defendants contend that they secured from Plaintiff an “express agreement that would proceed under subpoena.” ECF No. The parties’ dispute arises from this subpoena. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff served a subpoena on Stage Front, a non-party to this litigation. OPINION & ORDER Counsel for the parties in this case have consistently engaged in litigation tactics that “unreasonably and vexatiously” multiply the proceedings in this case. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |