United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
For CQuest America, Inc., IL, Sangamon an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: Charles R Schmadeke, LEAD ATTORNEY, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, Springfield, IL; Robert M Birndorf, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT M. BIRNDORF, Chicago, IL; Barbara Kremer Myers, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Springfield, IL.
For Yahasoft, Inc., a Georgia business corporation, Defendant, Counter Claimant: Paul Eastham Lehner, Randall L Mitchell, LEAD ATTORNEYS, ADDUCCI DORF LEHNER MITCHELL & BLANKENSHIP PC, Chicago, IL.
OPINION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL
Tom Schanzle-Haskins, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff CQUEST AMERICA, INC. (CQUEST) filed its Complaint for Breach of Contract against Defendant YAHASOFT, INC. (YAHASOFT) on August 21, 2013 in the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County. The case was removed to this Court on October 7, 2013, and comes before the Court on the Emergency Motion to Compel (d/e 16) filed by CQUEST. YAHASOFT filed its Response (d/e 18) to the Emergency Motion to Compel on Monday, November 24, 2014.
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges breach of a written Software Services Agreement between CQUEST and YAHASOFT. The Complaint alleges, in part, that YAHASOFT failed to perform the services required under the contract in a competent, diligent, and timely manner. The Complaint further alleges that YAHASOFT failed to provide implementation and customization service as required by the contract and failed to complete the services on or before June 30, 2012 as required by the contract. The Complaint also alleges that YAHASOFT failed to specify services performed on a monthly basis (Complaint, para. 10) and that YAHASOFT has not implemented or customized software for functionality as required by the agreement.
YAHASOFT denies the allegations of the Plaintiff's Complaint and has filed a Counterclaim (d/e 6) for breach of contract.
Plaintiff served the Defendant with written discovery on May 14, 2014, including a Request for Production of Documents (Request). In the Request were certain specific requests made for the documents described below in Request Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 19. On September 5, 2014, substantially after the deadline for complying with the Request, YAHASOFT filed the following responses to Requests Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 19:
REQUEST NO. 16: Any and all system application source code, and all documents related to system application source code, which the Defendant created, developed, worked on, or modified in connection with the Software Services Agreement.
RESPONSE: To the extent they are in the possession of Yahasoft, the requested documents will be made available for copying at a mutually agreed upon time and place by counsel for both parties.
REQUEST NO. 17: All documents related to or reflecting Illinois-specific database schema which the Defendant created, developed, worked on, or modified in connection with the Software Services Agreement.
RESPONSE: To the extent they are in the possession of Yahasoft, the requested documents will be made available for copying at a mutually agreed upon time and place by counsel for both Parties.
REQUEST NO. 18: All documents containing or reflecting any technical specifications which the Defendant used or referred to when creating, developing, working on, or modifying source code, database schema, or the Software.
RESPONSE: To the extent they are in the possession of Yahasoft, the requested documents will be made available for copying at a mutually agreed upon time ...