Court filing
MOTION for Leave to File re 52 First MOTION for Protective Order To Terminate Rule… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 74)
Summary
A defendant's motion for leave to file a reply brief, dated July 7, 2020, in Sport & Wheat CPA PA v. ServisFirst Bank Inc. and three other bank defendants, No. 3:20-cv-05425, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. Synovus Bank seeks leave to file a short reply addressing what it describes as a request for attorney's fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 contained in the plaintiff's response to Synovus' motion to terminate a deposition under Rule 30. It argues that because the plaintiff chose not to file a motion to compel, Synovus would otherwise have no opportunity to respond to the fee request, citing the response at ECF Doc. 73. The filing includes a Local Rule 7.1(B) and (C) certificate describing a July 7, 2020 conference that did not resolve the issue, and a Local Rule 7.1(F) certification that the motion contains 152 words.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
:
SPORT & WHEAT CPA PA, a Florida :
corporation, individually and on behalf of :
a class of similarly situated businesses and : Case No. 3:20-cv-05425-
individuals, : TKW-HTC
:
:
Plaintiff, :
:
:
v. :
:
SERVISFIRST BANK INC.; SYNOVUS :
BANK; THE FIRST, A NATIONAL :
BANKING ASSOCIATION; and :
TRUIST BANK, :
Defendants. :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DEFENDANT SYNOVUS BANK’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION TO TERMINATE RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
Synovus seeks leave to file a short reply brief for the purpose of addressing
what appears to be a request for attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37 contained within Plaintiff’s response to Synovus’ Motion to
Terminate its Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition. Synovus has good cause for this request.
Plaintiff admits in its response brief that it chose not to file a motion to compel
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which would have given Synovus an
opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s newly-raised request for fees. ECF Doc. 73 at
31. Given that Plaintiff is apparently seeking such fees and has included in its
response brief arguments regarding why it believes, incorrectly, that such fees are
warranted, Plaintiff’s decision to refrain from filing a standalone motion for
attorney’s fees will deprive Synovus of the ability to respond to Plaintiff’s request
absent an order permitting Synovus to file a reply brief.
Respectfully submitted, this 7th day of July, 2020.
By: /s/Ramsey B. Prather
Philip A. Bates
Florida Bar #228354
PHILIP A. BATES, P.A.
25 West Cedar Street, Suite 550 (32502)
Post Office Box 1390
Pensacola, FL 32591
pbates@philipbates.net
(850) 470-0091
James E. Butler, Jr.
Georgia Bar #099625
Ramsey B. Prather
Georgia Bar #658395
BUTLER WOOTEN & PEAK LLP
105 Thirteenth Street
P.O. Box 2766
Columbus, GA 31902
jim@butlerwooten.com
ramsey@butlerwooten.com
(706) 322-1990
Paul J. Nathanson
Columbia Bar #982269
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
901 15th Street, N.W.
2
Washington, D.C. 20005
paul.nathanson@davispolk.com
(202) 962-7000
Antonio M. Haynes
New York Bar #5151816
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Ave.
New York, NY 10017
antonio.haynes@davispolk.com
(212) 450-4000
Attorneys for Defendant Synovus Bank
3
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(B) AND (C)
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B) & (C), undersigned counsel certifies that he
attempted in good faith to resolve the issue through a meaningful conference with
an attorney for the adverse party during a July 7, 2020 telephone conference and
over email that day but was unable to do so as Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that
Plaintiff’s consent would have to be contingent upon Synovus’ agreement to
certain vague conditions regarding the scope of the reply.
By: /s/Ramsey B. Prather
Ramsey B. Prather
Georgia Bar #658395 (Pro hac vice)
BUTLER WOOTEN & PEAK LLP
105 Thirteenth Street
P.O. Box 2766
Columbus, GA 31902
ramsey@butlerwooten.com
(706) 322-1990
4
LOCAL RULE 7.1(F) WORD LIMIT CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Northern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(F), I certify that
Defendant Synovus Bank’s Motion to File Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to
Terminate ate Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition is in compliance with the Court’s word
limit. According to the word processing program used to prepare this motion, the
document contains 152 words, excluding the case style, signature block, and this
certification.
By: /s/Ramsey B. Prather
Ramsey B. Prather
Georgia Bar #658395 (Pro hac vice)
BUTLER WOOTEN & PEAK LLP
105 Thirteenth Street
P.O. Box 2766
Columbus, GA 31902
ramsey@butlerwooten.com
(706) 322-1990
5
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.74.0.pdf
- Size
- 33,777 bytes
- SHA-256
- 8ea3c6274bcbc9c5b55faeb3bf4715e564059888382afca45ea1a7b1b269d439
- Original
- No public link identified.