`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` No.: 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-cgc
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUPON, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC’s (“B.E. Technology”) Motion for
`
`Oral Argument (ECF No. 35), filed March 18, 2013. B.E. Technology seeks oral argument
`
`regarding Defendant Groupon, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Groupon”) Motion to Change Venue
`
`(ECF No. 21), filed January 10, 2013. Plaintiff filed its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s
`
`Motion (ECF No. 27) on January 31, 2013. With leave of Court, Defendant filed its Reply (ECF
`
`No. 34) on February 19, 2013.
`
`B.E. Technology asserts that an oral hearing on the Motion to Change Venue will “enable
`
`[Plaintiff] adequately to respond to the arguments and evidence presented by [Groupon’s] reply
`
`memoranda,” and “provide the Court a forum to ask any questions it may have before deciding
`
`these important issues.” (ECF No. 35 at 1–2.) Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 1.2 and Local Rule
`
`7.2(d), the Court finds that a hearing is not necessary. Plaintiff’s Motion is, therefore, DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jon P. McCalla_______
`CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE