`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Defendant/Counterclaimant.
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION OF PLAINTIFF B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`Comes now Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC (“B.E. Technology”), by and through the
`
`undersigned counsel, and files its Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the
`
`Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) filed by Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`
`(“Facebook”) at D.E. 29. In support of its Unopposed Motion, B.E. Technology requests an
`
`additional three (3) days, through and including Thursday, January 31, 2013, in which time to
`
`respond in opposition to Facebook’s Motion to Transfer Venue. B.E. Technology requests this
`
`additional three days in order to give it and its counsel time to adequately finalize its response to
`
`Facebook’s Motion. As B.E. Technology’s Motion for Extension is unopposed by Facebook and
`
`good cause exists for the extension, B.E. Technology requests that the Court allow it an
`
`additional three days, through and including Thursday, January 31, 2013, in which time to
`
`respond in opposition to Facebook’s motion.
`
`LOCAL RULE 7.2 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`
`
`On January 28, 2013, Richard M. Carter, Esq. counsel for B.E. Technology contacted
`
`Laura Merritt, Esq., counsel for Facebook, via telephone regarding the requested extension. Ms.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 34 Filed 01/28/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 287
`
`Merritt indicated that Facebook would not oppose the extension if B.E. Technology would grant
`
`it leave to file a reply to B.E. Technology’s response in opposition to Facebook’s Motion to
`
`Transfer Venue and would grant it a similar time extension in the future. The undersigned
`
`telephoned Ms. Merritt and explained that B.E. Technology would not oppose any motion by
`
`Facebook to file a reply provided that the reply did not raise evidentiary matter that was not
`
`addressed in Facebook’s original motion and would grant a similarly reasonable time extension
`
`in the future, to which Ms. Merritt, on behalf of Facebook, agreed.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Adam C. Simpson
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`Adam C. Simpson (TN B.P.R. #24705)
`MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON, P.C.
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119-4839
`Telephone: (901) 522-9000
`Facsimile: (901) 527-3746
`rcarter@martintate.com
`
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 15945)
`James Lin (CA Bar No. 241472)
`Qudus B. Olaniran (CA Bar No. 267838)
`Daniel J. Weinberg (CA Bar No. 227159)
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 593-6300
`Facsimile: (650) 593-6301
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`jlin@ftklaw.com
`qolaniran@ftklaw.com
`dweinberg@ftklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for B. E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 34 Filed 01/28/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 288
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on January 28, 2013, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`document was electronically filed with the United States District Court for the Western District
`of Tennessee, and was served on all counsel by the Court's electronic filing notification or via
`email.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Adam C. Simpson
`
`
`
`
`
`3
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
