IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00630-DME-MEH
NETQUOTE, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON BYRD, an internet user making use of the IP Addresses 64.136.27.226 and
64.136.26.227, and
MOSTCHOICE.COM, INC., a Georgia corporation,
Defendants.
NETQUOTE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO REOPEN
DEPOSITIONS AT THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE
Plaintiff NetQuote, Inc. (“NetQuote”), through undersigned counsel, submits this Reply
in support of its Motion To Reopen Depositions at the Federal Courthouse (Dkt. # 100)
(“Motion”) and in further support of its motion states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
MostChoice’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion To Reopen Depositions (Dkt. # 129)
(“Response”) demonstrates exactly why reopening these depositions, and doing so at the federal
courthouse, is necessary. The Response shows that MostChoice is planning on being evasive at
trial both about Michael Andrew’s knowledge and about document authentication issues.
Reconvening the depositions as NetQuote proposes will prevent MostChoice from abusing the
discovery process to try to escape responsibility at trial for its conduct.
Netquote Inc. v. Byrd
Doc. 156
Dockets.Justia.com
2
ARGUMENT
I.
NETQUOTE NEEDS TO CONTINUE THE ANDREW DEPOSITION.
MostChoice argues that the Andrew deposition does not need to be re-opened because
Andrew already has testified that “he knew nothing of what Byrd was doing.” (Resp. 3.) The
reason Andrew’s deposition needs to be reopened is that Andrew’s testimony disclaiming
knowledge of MostChoice’s fraud appears to be false, and the documents NetQuote needs to
confront Andrew with to prove that the testimony is false were not produced until days and
weeks after Andrew’s deposition. (Mot. 4.)
MostChoice’s Response ignores entirely, for example, the 29 documents produced weeks
after the Andrew deposition, which show that, in the Fall o