Page 1 of 8
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
______________________________________________________________________________
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE PRESERVATION DEPOSITIONS
______________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW, Mostchoice.com, Inc. (“Mostchoice”) and files this its Reply Brief in
Support of its Motion for Leave to Take Preservation Depositions and shows this Court the
following:
I. Expected Testimony of Proposed Deponents
A. Local Agents
Netquote makes two somewhat related assertions in its response that are patently false
and not supported by law. First, Netquote claims that Mostchoice can’t make a showing as to
what the proposed witnesses will testify to when deposed. Second, Netquote’s expert witness
actually intends to testify that certain of the agents left for reasons that are either not supported by
the Netquote customer service records (“Goldmine”) or are flatly contradicted by them. Either
way, Netquote’s position is wholly without merit.
Netquote Inc. v. Byrd
Doc. 208
Dockets.Justia.com
These documents have not only been reviewed thoroughly, but have been summarized by
1
counsel, but it would seem inappropriate as a standard to require counsel to share his mental
impressions of that summary, when the documents speak for themselves. It would further seem
an undue burden on the Court to file these 4,000 pages in support of this motion. This is
especially true in light of the Court’s prior decision to grant a motion that was unsupported by
more than the arguments of Netquote’s counsel.
After de-duplicating and in some cases de-triplicating documents.
2
Page 2 of 8
Counsel for Mostchoice has reviewed Netquote’s Goldmine records and proffers that
each agent is l