Two documents appeared today.
The first, (DE 83), was an order from the judge sua sponte (on her own initiative) dismissing the 3rd party motion to dismiss, as moot, because the IH Answer was amended (at her order).
Of course, the 3rd party defendants now get to file a new MTD, perhaps, giving them yet more time to reply. Meanwhile Rossi wanted to see the judge's ruling on that motion, before completing his own Answer, but the order on his motion for more time limited the delay to no later than December 14, or 7 days from the ruling if that would be earlier. (I suspect it could have been expected that this motion to dismiss would be dismissed as moot, I think that would be standard if the complaint was amended.) As today's ruling despatched the MTD (for now), Rossi now has until December 12, next Monday to file his Answer.
The original motion now mooted was[/url]
- [url='http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/0069.0_3rd_Party_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf']0069-0_3rd_party_motion_to_dismiss Joint MOTION TO DISMISS Answer to Complaint … by James A. Bass, Fulvio Fabiani, J.M. Products, Inc., Henry Johnson, United States Quantum Leap, LLC. Responses due by 11/7/2016, and then this pulls down with it
- 0077-0_3rd_party_reply_re_mtd Third-party Defendants’ combined reply to Counter-Plaintiff’s response in opposition to third-party Defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts III, IV, and V of Counter-Plaintiff’s Second Amended Counterclaims and third-party claims
There was also a notice issued today, DE84, of when the transcript of the hearing held October 14 before Judge Altonaga will be available through PACER: I give this information on the coldfusioncommunity.net Rossi v. Darden page. However, this is what PACER displayed for me:
You do not have access to this transcript.
TRANSCRIPT of the Motion Hearing and Status Conference held on 10/14/16, before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, 1-60 pages, Court Reporter: Stephanie McCarn, 305-523-5518 / [email protected]. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/27/2016. Redacted Transcript Dead line set for 1/5/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/6/2017. (smn)
And I added: "See DE66,67"
We also have such a notice, DE 48, with respect to the Hearing before the Magistrate held earlier:
You do not have access to this transcript.
TRANSCRIPT of Discovery Hearing held on 8/30/16 before Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan, 1-44 pages, Court Reporter: Carl Schanzleh, 305-523-5635. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/11/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Designation Access Form)(hh)
And I added "See DE 0040, 42."
If someone is terribly interested in obtaining these, they can be purchased as described. It would be an appreciated service to find out how much they cost. We would see the actual arguments being advanced by the parties. We will see that in the case of that Magistrate hearing in two weeks, I assume.
Some hearings do not seem to generate that notice with their minute entries.
There is another hearing scheduled for tomorrow per DE 75. "Discovery hearing December 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., on Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First Request for Production to Plaintiffs." This hearing, requested by IH, is about DE 75.1 which shows Rossi's objections to requests for production, such as all videos of the Doral plant to date. Rossi claimed that nothing after the "test" was over would be relevant. He will lose on this, I predict.
Because this was misunderstood on e-catworld, I explain that an interrogatory or request for production must be answered (under oath) unless the one it is directed to objects. If they object, they are not required to answer, unless the requestor obtains an order. If there is no order, in the presence of an objection, there is no obligation to respond. This came up because a commentator there believed that if the objection was not confirmed, formally, if it wasn't even mentioned in an order issued, then the person was obligated to respond. He had it backwards. The error allowed him to think that the Magistrate Orders were a major victory for Rossi, when the reality was much closer to the opposite.