![]() ![]() 136 at 2), Peerless contends that, with the exception of privileged documents, it agreed to produce responsive documents and has since produced a significant quantity of those documents to Local Access (Doc. Although the motion asserts that Peerless has failed to produce a single document in response to the subject requests (Doc. 148-1) and, it represents, provided additional documents (Doc. Also on March 26, 2018, Peerless served Amended Responses and Objections to Local Access’s Third Requests (“amended responses”) (Doc. 146), the same day that it responded to the motion to compel (Doc. Peerless filed its Answer to Second Amended Complaint and Amended Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims on Ma(Doc. This motion to compel followed on Ma(Doc. On March 5, 2018, after the briefing on the instant motion and subsequent to the discovery hearing, Local Access filed its Second Amended Complaint (Doc. In a sealed Order, the Court, among other rulings, directed Peerless to produce its invoices to all third party carriers (not end user customers) from Augto the present (Doc. Prior to the service of the response, the Court held a hearing on numerous discovery motions filed by the parties (Doc. On February 26, 2018, Peerless served its response to the subject requests (Doc. 136-1 – “subject requests”), seeking “the documents that Peerless believes support the claims and defenses it asserted in its Answer and Counterclaim” (Doc. On January 26, 2018, Local Access served its Third Request for Production to Peerless (Doc. 86) and, on January 12, 2018, Peerless filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Doc. Background In December, Local Access filed its Amended Complaint (Doc. The motion is due to be GRANTED in part and otherwise DENIED. ORDER This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff, Local Access, LLC’s Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions (Doc. ![]() Case No: 6:17-cv-236-Orl-40TBS PEERLESS NETWORK, INC., Defendant. 204 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION LOCAL ACCESS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |