Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 30 Filed 12/28/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID 162
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`)))))))))))
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM
`FOR SEVEN-DAY ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
`(WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Through undersigned counsel, defendant Amazon Digital Services, Inc. (“Amazon”),
`
`with the consent of plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C., respectfully moves the Court to enter the
`
`accompanying proposed Order, enlarging a current deadline applicable to each party by seven (7)
`
`calendar days. This motion is made prior to the current deadlines and is authorized by
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). It is most respectfully submitted that sufficient cause for the short extension
`
`results from the following circumstances.
`
`
`
`Defendant Amazon is requesting the Court to extend the current deadline of December
`
`31, 2012, for its response to the complaint, to January 7, 2013. As the Court is aware, this action
`
`is one of nineteen filed by the plaintiff in this venue between September 7 and October 2, 2012,
`
`based, with one exception directly relevant here, on two U.S. Patents. During Amazon’s process
`
`of engaging national (lead) counsel, it arranged to share local counsel with some of the other
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 30 Filed 12/28/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID 163
`
`defendants, and acted concurrently with them in seeking the current December 31 response
`
`deadline (as well as a January 7, 2013 date agreed with plaintiff for plaintiff’s initial
`
`infringement contentions and related document production). See Doc. 19. It was on or about
`
`December 5, 2012, that Amazon completed its engagement of lead counsel (who will also be
`
`representing LinkedIn Corporation and Twitter, Inc. in the actions against them).
`
`
`
`This instant action against Amazon differs from the eighteen others in one respect
`
`relevant here. This is the only action in which plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint alleging
`
`infringement of a U.S. Patent different from the two Patents collectively asserted in the other
`
`actions, i.e., No. 6,141,010 (See Doc. 9, First Amended Complaint). Since Amazon completed
`
`its engagement of lead counsel on December 5, counsel have been working diligently to
`
`investigate and determine the defenses that can appropriately be asserted in response to the
`
`Amended Complaint. Given the intervention of the holiday season, counsel need the small
`
`amount of additional time requested to complete this work and prepare a proper response to this
`
`particular complaint. And given the unique presence of issues involving the ‘010 Patent in this
`
`one action, counsel have not had the full benefit of the sort of collaboration with defense counsel
`
`in the eighteen other actions which the Court would properly assume occurs in a multi-action
`
`situation like this one.
`
`
`
`In the consultation preceding this motion pursuant to Local Rule 7, counsel agreed that if
`
`this short extension is granted, plaintiff B.E. Technology should have the same subsequent
`
`seven-day period for its initial infringement contention disclosure as the Court has fixed in the
`
`other eighteen actions. Thus, Amazon is presenting here the parties’ request that the deadline for
`
`its response to the Amended Complaint be fixed at January 7, and plaintiff’s initial infringement
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 30 Filed 12/28/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID 164
`
`disclosure be fixed at January 14, 2013. The parties believe that this slight variance in deadlines
`
`from the other actions will not materially impair the progress of the nineteen actions as a whole.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`s/Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`
`
`The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that prior to the filing of the foregoing motion,
`
`substantive consultation was held between the undersigned and Richard Carter, Esq., counsel for
`
`plaintiff B.E. Technology, and resulted in authorization to state that plaintiff does not oppose this
`
`motion but rather consents to the relief sought herein.
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 30 Filed 12/28/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID 165
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The foregoing document was filed under the Court’s CM/ECF system, automatically
`
`effecting service on counsel of record for all other parties who have appeared in this action on
`
`the date of such service.
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`4