`Case 1:17—cv-01692—CFC-SRF Document 46 Filed 11/09/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1458
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE
`
`STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`:
`
`Civil Action No. 17-1692-CFC-SRF
`
`NETFLIX, INC., and NETFLIX
`STREAMING SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`:
`
`ORDER
`
`At Wilmington this Ninth day of November in 2018:
`
`WHEREAS, Defendants moved to transfer this action to the Northern
`
`District of California (BI. 20);
`
`WHEREAS, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Magistrate Judge Fallon issued a
`
`Report and Recommendation (D.I. 44) on Defendants’ Motion to Transfer;
`
`WHEREAS, the Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court
`
`DENY Defendants’ Motion to Transfer;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties did not file any objections to the Report and
`
`Recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy;
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 46 Filed 11/09/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1459
`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC—SRF Document 46 Filed 11/09/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1459
`
`WHEREAS, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation
`
`should be adopted;1
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (D.I.
`
`44) is ADOPTED, and Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (D.I. 20) is DENIED.
`
`CONNOLLZ, Unitg States DistrictJudge
`
`' The Court notes, however, that Realtime’s forum choice should have been given
`“paramount consideration” and not any “less deference because Realtime does not
`maintain a place of business in Delaware.” See Realtime Data LLC v. Egnyte, Inc.,
`2018 WL 5724040 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2018); VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp, 2018
`WL 5342650 (D. Del. Oct. 29, 2018).
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
