Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 35 Filed 02/13/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 319
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA LLC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`2:12-CV-02824-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`2:12-CV-02825-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
` MOTION TO TRANSFER AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c), Defendants Samsung Telecommunications America LLC
`
`
`
`(“STA”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) respectfully
`
`move for entry of the accompanying proposed Order, granting leave to file a reply memorandum,
`
`not exceeding 10 pages in length, supporting Samsung’s pending motions to transfer venue under
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404. In support, Samsung respectfully submits the following:
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 35 Filed 02/13/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 320
`
`1.
`
`These actions were commenced on September 21, 2012 (STA D.E. 1; SEA D.E.
`
`1).1 Samsung timely responded to the complaint on December 31, 2012 (STA D.E. 22; SEA
`
`D.E. 26). On January 22, 2013, Samsung filed a motion and supporting documents seeking to
`
`transfer the actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the District of New Jersey or, in the alternative, to
`
`the Northern District of California (STA D.E. 27; SEA D.E. 31). Plaintiff B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C. (“B.E.”) filed a response opposing Samsung’s transfer motion on February 8, 2013 (STA
`
`D.E. 34; SEA D.E. 38).
`
`2.
`
`The determination of which venue best serves the interests of justice and the
`
`convenience 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
`
`deciding the case, whether and how the parties may procure relevant evidence, and a potentially
`
`extended 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
`
`detailed in the transfer motion), the filing of transfer motions in at least the majority of the cases,
`
`and the relationship 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, Samsung bear the burden on the underlying
`
`motion. Allowing Samsung an opportunity for rebuttal, through a reply memorandum, comports
`
`with fair application of that burden.
`
`4.
`
`The opposition to transfer filed by B.E. includes arguments that were not
`
`predictable as certain or requiring pre-emptive or hypothetical argument in Samsung’s opening
`
`
`1 All citations to “STA D.E.” refer to the docket entries in B.E. v. STA, Case No. 2:12-cv-2824.
`All citations to “SEA D.E.” refer to the docket entries in B.E. v. SEA, Case No. 2:12-cv-2825.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 35 Filed 02/13/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 321
`
`motion papers, including self-contradictory arguments that merit analysis. For example, B.E. has
`
`suggested on the one hand that this action should be consolidated with 18 others (STA D.E. 24;
`
`SEA D.E. 28), yet addresses the transfer motion as a contest between only two parties’
`
`circumstances (STA D.E. 34, at 11-12; SEA D.E. 38, at 11-12). Additionally, B.E.’s opposition
`
`contains factual assertions which were neither previously ascertainable by Samsung nor asserted
`
`by B.E. in its oppositions to other defendants’ motions to transfer, to which Samsung should be
`
`given an opportunity to respond. While Samsung believes the circumstances tilt strongly in
`
`favor of either proposed transferee district from any perspective, the Court should have the
`
`benefit of full argument on the implications of B.E.’s assertions in making its venue
`
`determination.
`
`5.
`
`These actions are at an early stage. No Scheduling Order has been entered yet.
`
`The proposed Order on this motion would require defendants to file their reply memorandum
`
`within just 7 days from the grant of leave. Allowing these few additional days before the motion
`
`is at issue for decision will not materially impede the progress of these actions. Similar requests
`
`for leave to file a reply memorandum have been submitted in at least seven other cases and
`
`granted by this Court.
`
`6.
`
`Like any Section 1404 motion in a case of this type, briefing must address a
`
`number of issues and circumstances. While Samsung is committed to its reply being as concise
`
`as possible, coverage of the issues meriting a reply appears likely to require more than the 5
`
`pages normally permitted by Local Rule 7.2(e). This motion respectfully requests authorization
`
`to use up to 10 pages for such purpose.
`
`7.
`
`Anticipating B.E.’s response to this motion, Samsung respectfully asks the Court
`
`to grant the requested leave without pre-imposing requirements for what the reply may contain.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 35 Filed 02/13/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID 322
`
`The underlying motion to transfer was filed early in the case consistent with efficient
`
`administration goals, is not subject to a deadline, and is not based on a closed fact record in the
`
`way that a summary judgment motion would be. If the reply is permitted, judgment is involved
`
`in determining what content of the response merits attention in a reply of limited length, and how
`
`to give the Court the best information possible for its decision-making process. Respectfully,
`
`B.E. should not be permitted to pre-block content from the reply sought here, if allowed.
`
`DATE:
`
`February 13, 2013
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jonathan E. Nelson
`Shepherd D. Tate (TN BPR #05638)
`Jonathan E. Nelson (TN BPR #028029)
`BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC
`100 Peabody Place, Suite 900
`Memphis, Tennessee 38103
`Telephone: (901) 543-5900
`Facsimile:
`(901) 543-5999
`state@bassberry.com
`Email:
`
`jenelson@bassberry.com
`
`Richard C. Pettus (admitted pro hac vice)
`Joshua Raskin (admitted pro hac vice)
`Justin A. MacLean (admitted pro hac vice)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone:
`(212) 801-9200
`Facsimile:
`(212) 801-6400
`Email:
`pettusr@gtlaw.com
`
`
`raskinj@gtlaw.com
`
`
`macleanj@gtlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants, Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications
`America, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 35 Filed 02/13/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID 323
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`
`I, Jonathan Nelson, attorney for Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, certify that I communicated with Counsel for
`
`Plaintiff, Craig Kaufman, on February 13, 2013 via email regarding Defendants’ intention to file
`
`the foregoing Motion, and conferred with him to determine whether the Plaintiff would agree to
`
`the relief sought, such that the Motion could be presented as unopposed. Mr. Kaufman advised
`
`that the Plaintiff would not oppose the Motion provided that Samsung agree to certain
`
`conditions. Samsung was unwilling to agree to those conditions. Plaintiff therefore opposes this
`
`Motion.
`
`
`
` /s/ Jonathan Nelson
`Jonathan Nelson
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The foregoing document was filed under the Court’s CM/ECF system, automatically
`
`
`
`effecting service on counsel of record for all other parties who have appeared in this action on
`
`the date of such service.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jonathan Nelson