`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` No.: 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-cgc
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER, 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. 37), filed March 18, 2013. B.E. Technology seeks oral argument
`
`regarding Defendant Twitter, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Twitter”) Motion to Change Venue (ECF
`
`No. 30), filed January 28, 2013. Plaintiff filed its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
`
`(ECF No. 33) on February 14, 2013. With leave of Court, Defendant filed its Reply (ECF No.
`
`36) on March 4, 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 [Twitter’s] reply
`
`memoranda,” and “provide the Court a forum to ask any questions it may have before deciding
`
`these important issues.” (ECF No. 37 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
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
