`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`)))))))))))
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC’S MOTION TO STAY
`PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`(WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION)
`Defendant Twitter, Inc. respectfully moves this Court to stay all proceedings in this case,
`
`including proceedings called for in the Local Patent Rules, pending resolution of Twitter, Inc.’s
`
`motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1404(a). The facts and legal authorities supporting this relief are set forth in the accompanying
`
`memorandum. As set forth in the Certificate of Consultation below, Plaintiff has advised that
`
`while it cannot consent to this motion, it will not actively oppose it.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`
`/s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`The Renaissance Center
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-cgc Document 31 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 276
`
`
`(901) 537-1000
`
`-and-
`
`J. David Hadden
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Darren F. Donnelly
`ddonnelly@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ryan J. Marton
`rmarton@fenwick.com
`Clifford Web
`cweb@fenwick.com
`Justin Hulse
`jhulse@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street, 6th Floor
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-cgc Document 31 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 277
`
`
`
`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, counsel for
`
`plaintiff B.E. Technology, over multiple days culminating in a telephone discussion on February
`
`7, 2013. At that time, B.E. Technology indicated that it would continue to oppose stay motions
`
`of the foregoing type in this and related cases. On the next afternoon, the Court granted several
`
`virtually identical motions for stay in related cases, and the undersigned re-contacted Mr. Carter
`
`to determine whether plaintiff would reconsider. As of 3:16 p.m. on this date, February 11, Mr.
`
`Carter advised that in light of the Court’s rulings on the other stay motions, plaintiff cannot con-
`
`sent to, but “will not actively oppose” this stay motion.
`
` /s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The foregoing document was filed under the Court’s CM/ECF system, automatically ef-
`
`fecting service on counsel of record for all other parties who have appeared in this action on the
`
`date of such service.
`
`
`
`
`
`60323601.1
`2/11/2013 4:17 pm
`
` /s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`-3-