Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Norcom 2000, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Corp.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


September 11, 2006

NORCOM 2000, INC. PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT,
v.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Re-Open Discovery and Amend Scheduling Order (Doc. 53), which has gone unopposed by Defendant. In the instant Motion, Plaintiff requests leave to re-depose Defendant's corporate representatives Carol Brooks and Sharon Santino, as well as Defendant's billing specialist Pamela Sandford and account representative Phil Howard (Id. at ¶ 1). This request is made subsequent to Plaintiff's discovery of alleged billing mistakes made by Defendant regarding Plaintiff's account, which apparently occurred after Plaintiff had initially taken the depositions of the aforementioned individuals (Id. at ¶¶ 3-5). Plaintiff believes further discovery is necessary in attempts to obtain information which could support Plaintiff's claim that Defendant materially breached the contract at issue in this case (Id. at ¶ 6).

In light of the late disclosure of these billing records to Plaintiff, the Court feels that Plaintiff's request is justified and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 53) as follows:

(1) Plaintiff is allowed sixty (60) days from the date of this Order (or by November 10, 2006) to take the requested depositions;

(2) Plaintiff shall file a status memorandum with the Court no later than October 9, 2006, listing the scheduled dates for each deposition it has been authorized and has elected to take;

(3) The dispositive motions filing deadline is extended to twenty (20) days after the last deposition, as listed in Plaintiff's status memorandum; and

(4) In the event Plaintiff is unable to schedule all of the depositions by October 9, 2006, it shall file a status memorandum with the Court explaining why it has been unable to do so, and asking for an extension of time, if necessary. Plaintiff should also do the same if it is unable to conduct all of the depositions by November 10, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R. Herndon United States District Judge

20060911

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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