Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-cgc Document 34 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 324
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No.: 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-cgc
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY
`SUPPORTING MOTION TO TRANSFER OF DEFENDANT TWITTER INC.
`(INCLUDING CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION)
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 7.2(c), defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) respect-
`
`fully moves for entry of the accompanying proposed Order, granting leave to file a reply memo-
`
`randum, not exceeding 10 pages in length, supporting Twitter’s pending motion to transfer venue
`
`of this action under 28 U.S.C. 1404. As set forth in the Certificate of Consultation below, plain-
`
`tiff has advised that while it cannot consent to this motion, it will not oppose it. In further sup-
`
`port of the relief sought herein, Twitter respectfully submits the following:
`
`1.
`
`This action was commenced on September 7, 2012 (Dkt. 1). Twitter timely re-
`
`sponded to the complaint on December 31, 2012 (Dkt. 19). On January 28, 2013, Twitter filed a
`
`motion and supporting documents seeking transfer of this action to the Northern District of Cali-
`
`fornia under 28 U.S.C. 1404 (Dkt. 30). On February 11, 2013, all proceedings in this case were
`
`stayed pending a determination of Twitter’s motion to transfer (Dkt. 32). Plaintiff filed a re-
`
`sponse opposing Twitter’s motion to transfer on February 14, 2013 (Dkt. 33).
`
`2.
`
`The determination of which venue best serves the interests of justice and the con-
`
`venience of parties and witnesses is among the most important matters the Court will decide in
`
`this action. It will determine which Court’s resources will be employed in managing and decid-
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-cgc Document 34 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 325
`
`
`ing the case, whether and how the parties may procure relevant evidence, and a potentially ex-
`
`tended series of travel and lodging arrangements for a large number of people. Indeed, given the
`
`existence of 18 other cases filed by the same plaintiff involving common U.S. patents (as de-
`
`tailed in the transfer motion), the filing of transfer motions in all of the cases, and the relation-
`
`ship of all the motions to the Court’s consideration of each, the Court’s decision will likely affect
`
`an extremely large number of people. The issue merits thorough consideration of all relevant
`
`facts, arguments, and authorities.
`
`3.
`
`As the party moving for transfer, Twitter bears the burden on the underlying mo-
`
`tion. Allowing Twitter an opportunity for rebuttal, through a reply memorandum, comports with
`
`fair application of that burden.
`
`4.
`
`B.E.’s opposition to Twitter’s transfer motion includes arguments whose self-
`
`contradictory character merits analysis. For example, plaintiff has suggested on the one hand
`
`that this action should be consolidated with 18 others, yet addresses the transfer motion as a con-
`
`test between only two parties’ circumstances. While Twitter believes the circumstances tilt
`
`strongly in favor of transfer, the Court should have the benefit of full argument on the implica-
`
`tions of these matters in the venue transfer context.
`
`5.
`
`This action is in an early stage. No Scheduling Order has been entered yet, and
`
`proceedings other than this transfer motion have been stayed pending its outcome. The proposed
`
`Order on this motion would require defendant to file its reply memorandum within just 7 days
`
`from the grant of leave. Allowing these few additional days before the motion is at issue for de-
`
`cision will not materially impede the progress of this action.
`
`6.
`
`Like any Section 1404 motion in a case of this type, briefing must address a num-
`
`ber of issues and circumstances. While Twitter is committed to its reply being as concise as pos-
`
`sible, coverage of the issues meriting a reply appears likely to require more than the 5 pages
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-cgc Document 34 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 326
`
`
`normally permitted by Local Rule 7.2(e). This motion respectfully requests authorization to use
`
`up to 10 pages for such purpose.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., 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 Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`-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
`
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-cgc Document 34 Filed 02/22/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 327
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that prior to the filing of the foregoing motion,
`
`multiple consultations were held with Richard Carter, attorney for plaintiff B.E. Technology, to
`
`determine whether plaintiff would agree to the relief sought. During that time, the Court granted
`
`motions similar to the foregoing in a number of related cases. On February 21, 2013, Mr. Carter
`
`informed the undersigned by electronic mail that plaintiff could not consent, but will not oppose
`
`this 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
`
`s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`date of such service.
`
`
`
`
`
`60328568.1
`2/22/2013 3:21 pm