Tyntec Inc. et al v. Syniverse Technologies, LLC

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2017-cv-00591


Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 21818 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION TYNTEC INC., a Delaware Corporation, and TYNTEC GROUP LTD. f/k/a Phoenix Spring Ltd., a United Kingdom Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:17-cv-591-T-23SPF SYNIVERSE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. __ / ORDER This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court has taken under advisement the parties' respective motions for summary judgment and all accompanying briefing for the purposes of a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge. Citations to the record in all of tyntec's briefing, with the exception of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 116), are inaccurate. For example, tyntec cites to "Ex. 5 at 170:22-172:6" in its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Syniverse's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 130 at 26). 1 To locate this exhibit, tyntec indicates in the brief (Doc. 130 at 13) that references to exhibits in this form, i.e., "Ex. __," correspond to exhibits that accompany tyntec's Statement of Uncontested Facts In Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 117). Exhibit 5 (Doc. 117-1 at 333), however, does not contain the information for which it is cited. Although 1 Page number references are to the CM/ECF electronic page number of the document, not to the movant's page numbering. PageID 21819 under no obligation to do so, the Court attempted to find an Exhibit 5 in the record that might correspond with the citation or a transcript exhibit of any number that might contain this information, but was unsuccessful. See, e.g., United States v. WRW Corp., 986 F.2d 138, 143 (6th Cir. 1993) (stating that "trial court is not required to speculate on which portion of the record the non-moving party relies, nor is there an obligation to 'wade through' the record for specific facts"). This was also the case for tyntec's citations to the record in its Statement of Uncontested Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (see, e.g., Doc. 117 at ¶ 60 citing to exhibits 102, 103, 104, and 105, which are not attached as exhibits to Doc. 117 or any of tyntec's related submissions) and its Statement of Disputed Material Facts in Opposition to Syniverse's Motion for Summary Judgment (see, e.g., Doc. 131 at ¶ 69 citing to exhibits 63 at 266:5-19, 282:4-10, 288:11-289:3 and 24 at 30:17-22, which are either not attached to Doc. 131 or any of tyntec's related submissions or, if attached, are not transcripts and do not otherwise correspond with the citation). In fact, tyntec's Statement of Uncontested Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 117) cites to exhibits numbered well beyond the 86 exhibits attached thereto (see, e.g., Doc. 117 at ¶ 72 citing to Ex. 139). The Court notes that it has reviewed the thumb drives tyntec submitted to the Clerk's Office to confirm that tyntec's exhibits were accurately uploaded. Accordingly, tyntec is directed to advise the Court where in the record it can find the exhibits referred to in tyntec's briefing or to re-submit the exhibits referred to in Docs. 117, 130, and 131 on a thumb drive to the Clerk's Office by Monday, August 12, 2019. If re- submitted, the exhibits must be individually bookmarked for ease of reference. 2 PageID 21820 ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on August 7, 2019. 3