Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bartech Systems International Inc. v. Mobile Simple Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 12, 2018

BARTECH SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL INC., Plaintiff,
v.
MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS IAS, INC., a Canadian corporation, GEM SA, a Belgian corporation, VINCENT TESSIER, an individual, CHRISTELLE PIGEAT, an individual, Defendants MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, VINCENT TESSIER, an individual, CHRISTELLE PIGEAT, an individual, Counterclaimants,
v.
BARTECH SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware corporation, Counter-defendant.

          MICHAEL V. INFUSO, ESQ., KEITH W. BARLOW, ESQ., SEAN B. KIRBY, ESQ. GREENE INFUSO, LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

          REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO EXCHANGE DISCOVERY ARGUMENTS (FIRST REQUEST)

GEM SA GEM SA ("GEM") by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby requests an order from this Court extending the time in which itself and Bartech Systems International, Inc. ("Plaintiff) must exchange and modify their arguments and submit their joint statement pursuant to this Court's prior Order (see ECF No. 415). Currently, the Court's Order requires that the parties submit subsequent modifications by January 12, 2018, and that the parties submit the joint statement on January 16, 2018. Here, GEM requests that the Court modify its Order as follows: (1) GEM must submit subsequent modifications of its arguments to Plaintiff on or before January 17, 2018; (2) Plaintiff must submit subsequent modifications of its arguments to GEM on or before January 19, 2018; and (3) the parties must file a joint statement no later than January 22, 2018, with Plaintiff delivering a courtesy copy to the Court, as described in the Court's Order, no later than January 23, 2018.

         Here, Plaintiff and GEM conducted the Court ordered meet and confer on December 22, 2018 ("Meeting"), regarding GEM's supplemental responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests. Subsequently, GEM's counsel corresponded with Plaintiffs counsel on January 9, 2018, pursuant to the Court's Order, regarding the remaining, disputed discovery issues. (See correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) In this correspondence, GEM provided its understanding of, and primary arguments regarding, what constituted the remaining disputed issues after the Meeting and GEM's subsequent supplemental discovery responses and disclosures served post-Meeting. (See id.)

         Specifically, GEM informed Plaintiff of its understanding that the remaining, material disputed issues pertained to: (1) production of information for purposes of damages; (2) production of the attachments to the email communications GEM produced; and (3) GEM financial statements/business plan/operating budget/employee compensation. (See id.) In this correspondence, GEM provided Plaintiff its position regarding these disputed issues. (See id.) Plaintiffs counsel responded later that same day with a draft copy of the joint statement detailing Plaintiffs understanding of which discovery requests it felt remained in dispute. (See correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit 2.)

         Shortly thereafter, GEM expressed concern to Plaintiff regarding the timing and sequence of the exchange of information, as it did not allow GEM any opportunity to provide a complete and detailed delineation of arguments since it was unaware of Plaintiffs position regarding disputed discovery requests, particularly newly disputed issues involving GEM's privilege log and GEM's supplemental disclosures served after the Meeting, until after receiving Plaintiffs draft joint statement. (See correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit 3.)

         Accordingly, GEM proposed to Plaintiff that GEM be allowed to submit its modified arguments and detailed response to Plaintiffs disputed discovery issues, particularly the new issues raised by Plaintiff, by January 12, 2018. (See id.) GEM further proposed correspondingly allowing Plaintiff until January 15, 2018, to modify its arguments based on GEM's responses so that the issues can be fully briefed for the Court prior to the parties submitting the joint statement pursuant to the Order on January 16, 2018. (See id.) However, Plaintiff denied GEM's proposal, citing to the Court's Order requiring that subsequent modifications to the parties' arguments be submitted no later than January 12, 2018. (See correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)

         Therefore, GEM requests that this Court allow the parties to extend the deadline for submitting their joint statement and for modifying their arguments contained therein. Doing so will not prejudice either party, and will in fact be more beneficial for the Court in being able to properly identify the remaining, disputed issues and evaluate the parties' relative positions as to each.

         Specifically, GEM requests that the Court modify its Order as follows: (1) GEM must submit subsequent modifications of its arguments to Plaintiff on or before January 17, 2018; (2) Plaintiff must submit subsequent modifications of its arguments to GEM on or before January 19, 2018; and (3) the parties must file a joint statement no later than January 22, 2018, with Plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.