Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[dhwco]

Question about the continuance.

From Daic’s court Document 33286300 – dated Oct 24, 2007.

3. Counsel for Daic asked counsel for Calypso for dates to complete Mr. Mendoza's deposition. On September 28, 2007, counsel for Daic received correspondence from counsel for Calypso inviting mediation in the matter. Counsel for Daic agreed and all parties stayed deadlines. In spite of discussions between the parties the case has not resolved at this time.

From Daic’s Court document 32756804 – dated Oct 4, 2007

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced cause are the original and one (1) copy of the following:
1) Rule 11 Agreement executed by the parties (extending deadline to file 30 day supplemental materials/discovery responses to October 17, 2007).

MY QUESTION:

How can Daic say on OCT 24th that the discovery was stayed by agreement on Sept 28th when Daic extended discovery on OCT 4th?

What was he extending on the 4th if it was stayed earlier? It is apparent Clyw allowed the discovery to be extended to OCT 17th and never agreed to "stay" discovery. In a nutshell if appears Daic is lying, but you be the judge.