`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` No.: 2:12-cv-02823-JPM-tmp
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BARNES & NOBLE, 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. 43), filed March 18, 2013. B.E. Technology seeks oral argument
`
`regarding Defendant Barnes & Noble, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Barnes and Noble”) Motion to
`
`Change Venue (ECF No. 28), filed January 7, 2013. Plaintiff filed its Response in Opposition to
`
`Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 32) on January 25, 2013. With leave of Court, Defendant filed its
`
`Reply (ECF No. 39) on February 13, 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 [Barnes and
`
`Noble’s] reply memoranda,” and “provide the Court a forum to ask any questions it may have
`
`before deciding these important issues.” (ECF No. 43 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