Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States District Court Southern District of Florida: Plaintiff

    Uploaded by

    jaxxstraw
    390 views8 pages
    This document summarizes IBM's response to QSGI's motion for a 10-day extension to file a response to IBM's motion to dismiss. [1] IBM states that while it will not join the motion, it does not oppose a shorter, reasonable extension of one week or less. [2] IBM argues that QSGI misstated relevant facts by claiming IBM objected to a 10-day extension when IBM only objected to the lengthier extension. [3] IBM also argues that QSGI misstated the existing deadline, which is April 30th not May 3rd as QSGI claimed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes IBM's response to QSGI's motion for a 10-day extension to file a response to IBM's motion to dismiss. [1] IBM states that while it will not join the motion, it does not oppose a shorter, reasonable extension of one week or less. [2] IBM argues that QSGI misstated relevant facts by claiming IBM objected to a 10-day extension when IBM only objected to the lengthier extension. [3] IBM also argues that QSGI misstated the existing deadline, which is April 30th not May 3rd as QSGI claimed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    390 views8 pages

    United States District Court Southern District of Florida: Plaintiff

    Uploaded by

    jaxxstraw
    This document summarizes IBM's response to QSGI's motion for a 10-day extension to file a response to IBM's motion to dismiss. [1] IBM states that while it will not join the motion, it does not oppose a shorter, reasonable extension of one week or less. [2] IBM argues that QSGI misstated relevant facts by claiming IBM objected to a 10-day extension when IBM only objected to the lengthier extension. [3] IBM also argues that QSGI misstated the existing deadline, which is April 30th not May 3rd as QSGI claimed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 8

    Case 9:11-cv-80880-KLR Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2012 Page 1 of 5

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA QSGI, INC., Plaintiff, v. IBM GLOBAL FINANCING and INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendants.

    Case No. 9:11-cv-80880-KLR

    DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants International Business Machines Corporation and IBM Global Financing (collectively, IBM), by and through undersigned counsel, file this response to plaintiff QSGI, Inc.s (QSGI) Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Motion) (ECF No. 60). QSGI effectively requests a two-week extension of the due date for its response, while misstating two relevant facts. First, QSGI mischaracterizes the parties correspondence in stating that Defendants object to Plaintiffs request for a 10-day extension of time to file Plaintiffs Response. QSGI originally requested by email a 10-day extension of time to respond to IBMs Motion to Dismiss. IBM offered that if QSGI requested an extension for a reasonable period of time (i.e., a week), IBM would not oppose such an extension. (See April 27, 2012 email from B. Diessel to C.X. Dam, Exhibit 1.) IBM declined a lengthier extension on the basis of QSGIs prior persistent requests for and abuses of extensions.1
    1

    For example, IBM agreed in good faith to five extensions for QSGI to respond to IBMs written discovery requests, including on December 7, 2011; January 5, 2012; January 19, 2012; January 27, 2012; and February 8, 2012. QSGI did not meet any of those deadlines, requiring

    Case 9:11-cv-80880-KLR Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2012 Page 2 of 5

    Second, QSGI misstates the deadline for filing its opposition to IBMs Motion to Dismiss. QSGIs present deadline is April 30, not May 3. IBM served QSGI with an unredacted Motion to Dismiss by hand on April 16. QSGIs response is due 14 days thereafterApril 30. See S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1(c)(1)(B) (If, in addition to being filed via CM/ECF, the motion or memorandum was served by hand delivery, count fourteen (14) days (seven (7) days for a reply) beginning the day after the motion, response, or memorandum was hand-delivered.).2 QSGIs counsel recognized as much in its correspondence to IBM requesting an extension (April 26, 2012 email from C.X. Dam to B. Diessel, Exhibit 1 (QSGIs response to your clients Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is due Monday, April 30, 2012.)). Yet QSGI now misrepresents the existing due date as May 3 and requests a 10-day extension from that incorrect date, resulting in a requested extension of two weeks. Accordingly, if the Court in its discretion grants QSGI an extension of time to respond to IBMs Motion to Dismiss, we request that the Court consider a reasonable extension on the basis of the April 30 deadline.

    IBM to file a Motion to Compel with the Court. See Mot. to Compel, pp. 2-3 (Feb. 15, 2012, ECF. No. 40); Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Pl.s Resps. to Defs. Disc. Reqs., pp. 2-4 (Mar. 12, 2012, ECF No. 44.) After the Court ordered QSGI to comply in full by April 2, see Order Granting Mot. to Compel (Mar. 16, 2012, ECF. No. 50), QSGI asked IBM for an extension to April 3 to provide its ordered document production. But QSGI did not complete its document production by the Courts date or, as far as IBM can tell, by the filing of this submission.
    2

    The docket entry showing a due date of May 3 is in error.

    Case 9:11-cv-80880-KLR Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2012 Page 3 of 5

    Dated: April 30, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura Besvinick Laura Besvinick Florida Bar No. 391158 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard 4th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-459-6500 Facsimile: 305-459-6550
    Laura.Besvinick@HoganLovells.com

    Evan R. Chesler* Richard J. Stark* Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal* CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 212-474-1000 Facsimile: 212-474-3700 echesler@cravath.com rstark@cravath.com tsankoorikal@cravath.com Ty Cobb* Eric J. Stock* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-637-5600 Facsimile: 202-637-5910 Ty.Cobb@HoganLovells.com Eric.Stock@Hoganlovells.com *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Counsel for Defendants IBM Global Financing and International Business Machines Corporation

    Case 9:11-cv-80880-KLR Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2012 Page 4 of 5

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 30th day of April 2012, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. Copies of the foregoing document will be served upon interested counsel either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

    /s/ Laura Besvinick Laura Besvinick

    Case 9:11-cv-80880-KLR Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2012 Page 5 of 5

    QSGI, INC. SERVICE LIST Juan Pablo Bauta, II Ferraro Law Firm 4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd Suite 700 Miami, FL 33146 Phone: 305-375-0111 Fax: 305-379-6222 Case A. Dam Ferraro Law Firm 4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd Suite 700 Miami, FL 33146 Phone: 305-375-0111 Fax: 305-379-6222 Email: cxd@ferrarolaw.com

    Case 9:11-cv-80880-KLR Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2012 Page 1 of 3

    Exhibit 1

    Case 9:11-cv-80880-KLR Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2012 Page 2 of 3

    Re: Motion for Ten (10) Day Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss
    Benjamin Diessel to: Case X. Dam, Juan P. Bauta
    Cc: laura.besvinick Bcc: Pawan Nelson 04/27/2012 12:34 PM

    Case, We will not join a motion for an extension. However, we would not oppose a motion seeking a reasonable, shorter extension (i.e., one week or less). Benjamin Diessel Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 (212) 474-1177 (direct) (212) 474-3700 (fax) "Case X. Dam"
    From: To: Cc: Date: Subject:

    Dear Mr. Diessel:

    04/26/2012 03:21:57 PM

    "Case X. Dam" <cxd@ferrarolaw.com> <BDiessel@cravath.com> <laura.besvinick@hoganlovells.com>, "Juan P. Bauta" <jpb@ferrarolaw.com> 04/26/2012 03:21 PM Motion for Ten (10) Day Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss

    Dear Mr. Diessel: QSGIs response to your clients Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is due Monday, April 30, 2012. Please let me know if your clients object to our requesting a ten (10) extension of time to file QSGIs response. Thank you very much for your cooperation and reply. Sincerely, Case

    Case A. Dam, Esq.


    4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33146 Phone: (305) 375-0111 Facsimile: (305) 379-6222

    Case 9:11-cv-80880-KLR Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2012 Page 3 of 3

    Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this transmittal, including any attachment, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this transmittal from any computer or other data bank.

    [attachment "image001.png" deleted by Benjamin Diessel/NYC/Cravath]

    You might also like