VELOCITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CELERITY HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., No. 2:2009cv00102 - Document 60 (W.D. Pa. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 55 MOTION for Reconsideration re 54 Order on Motion to Compel filed by CELERITY HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., and 56 MOTION to Compel Discovery Directed to Counterclaim Defendant Philip Elias filed by CELERITY HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC. Signed by Judge William L. Standish on 6/15/2010. (md)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VELOCITY INTERNATIONAL/ INC./ d/b/a VELOCITY BROADCASTING/ Plaintiff/ vs. CELERITY HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS/ INC. f/k/a CELERITY HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS LLC Civil Action No. 09-102 Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff/ vs. PHILIP ELIAS, Third Party Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court are two motions, the first a motion for partial reconsideration of the Court's Order of June 1, 2010, filed Defendant by Celerity ("Celerity"), at Doc. No. 55. Healthcare Solutions, Inc. On June 1, 2010, the Court ordered that discovery to be extended in this matter until June 15, 2010. (See Doc. No. 53.) unspecified date depositions which/ discovery and the Celeri ty in order due to parties' seeks a to the take lack further five of extension to an previously-noticed responses scheduling difficulties, completed before the new discovery deadline. to written cannot be In its response International, Inc. to Celerity's motion, Plaintiff Velocity ("Velocity"), states that it does not oppose Celerity's request, but requests a further 30- to 45-day extension in which depositions of fact witnesses for both parties might be scheduled. (Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, Doc. No. 57, "Plf.'s Resp.," ,14.) In addition, although not in the form of a motion, Velocity seeks yet another extension of discovery until June 18, 2010, in order to allow it to prepare a privilege log, amend interrogatory responses and clarify objections in order to comply with the Court's Order of June 1, 2010. Finally, Velocity seeks, again without filing a motion, an order directing that it need not respond to Celerity's amended document requests 28, 29 and 30. (Plf.'s Resp. " This case was filed on January 28, 2009, 9-12.) and after denying Celerity's motion to dismiss Velocity's counterclaims, ordered discovery to formally begin on June 30, 2009. the Court This fairly straightforward breach of commercial contract suit has thus been in discovery for almost one year. None of the parties appears to have been as forthcoming as it might have been with its responses to discovery, as evidenced by the numerous motions requests for extension of time to respond. to compel and However, as stated in more detail in the Order attached hereto, we shall grant Celerity's motion for an extension of time in which to complete the five depositions identified in its motion at footnote 1. 2 Moreover, despite Velocity's failure to provide a proper motion seeking an extension of time in which to complete discovery, we shall grant that "motion" as well. document requests 28, However, having reviewed the amended 29, and 30 which Velocity attached to its response, we believe these requests are stated with the exactitude the Court anticipated in its June I, 2010 Order and therefore Velocity's "motion" for an order excusing it from responding is denied. The second motion filed by Celerity at Docket No. 56 seeks to compel responses from Counterclaim Defendant Philip Elias to Celerity's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Celerity requests on Mr. Elias on April 30, served those discovery 2010, well before the end of fact discovery at the time, i.e., May 31, 2010. After Mr. Elias failed to respond within the time period set out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) (2), counsel for Celerity brought that failure to Mr. Elias's attention by means of a letter to his additional four days in which to respond. filed on June 4, 2010, counsel, granting an The motion to compel was after no responses were forthcoming, and seeks an Order of Court compelling Mr. Elias to respond within five days of the Court's Order on the pending motion. In its response to the motion to compel, Mr. Elias states that he does not object to completing responses within the time period proposed. As set forth in the Order attached hereto, 3 he is therefore directed to do so. June I.$'"" . I 2010 United States District Judge 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
