Case 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 167
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02826-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment America,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Sony Mobile Communications (U.S.A.) Inc.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Sony Electronics Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY
`SUPPORTING SONY’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
`(INCLUDING CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION)
`
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 7.2(c), defendants Sony Computer Entertainment
`
`America LLC’s (“SCEA”), Sony Electronics Inc. (“SEL”), and Sony Mobile Communications
`
`(U.S.A.) Inc. (“SoMC”) (collectively “Sony”), respectfully move for entry of the accompanying
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 168
`
`
`proposed Order, granting leave to file a reply memorandum, not exceeding 10 pages in length,
`
`supporting Sony’s pending Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California
`
`under 28 U.S.C. 1404. See Case No. 12-cv-02826-JPM-tmp (“SCEA’s Docket”), Dkt. 25; Case
`
`No. 12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp (“SoMC’s Docket”), Dkt. 29; Case No. 12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp
`
`(“SEL’s Docket”), Dkt. 24.1 As set forth in the Certificate of Consultation below, plaintiff has
`
`advised that while it cannot consent to this motion, it will not oppose it. In further support of the
`
`relief sought herein, Sony respectfully submits the following:
`
`Sony seeks leave to file a reply because Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C.’s (“BET”)
`
`Opposition to Sony’s Motion to Transfer Venue (“Motion to Transfer”) (1) argues for
`
`application of an incorrect legal standard in determining motions to transfer, (2) provides facts
`
`purporting to show that this District is BET’s home forum when such facts are contradicted by
`
`BET’s Federal and State filings, (3) contravenes Federal Circuit precedent by dismissing a factor
`
`in the analysis for determining motions to transfer, and (4) does not actually dispute the location
`
`of the defendants, the evidence, the witnesses, and the prior art, all of which favor granting
`
`Sony’s Motion to Transfer.
`
`The determination of which venue best serves the interests of justice and the convenience
`
`of the parties is among the most important matters in these actions. The Court will determine the
`
`effect of venue on the burden to third parties, parties to this action, and judicial economy, as well
`
`as whether and how the parties can obtain relevant discovery.
`
`
`1
`These actions were commenced on September 21, 2012. See SCEA’s Docket, Dkt. 1; SoMC’s Docket,
`Dkt. 1; SEL’s Docket, Dkt. 1. Sony filed responses to the complaints on December 31, 2012. SCEA’s Docket, Dkt.
`21; SoMC’s Docket, Dkt. 25; SEL’s Docket, Dkt. 20. On January 28, 2013, Sony filed motions and supporting
`documents seeking transfer of this action to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
`SCEA’s Docket, Dkt. 25; SoMC’s Docket, Dkt. 29; SEL’s Docket, Dkt. 24. Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`(“BET”) filed a response opposing such transfer on February 14, 2013. SCEA’s Docket, Dkt. 32; SoMC’s Docket,
`Dkt. 36; SEL’s Docket, Dkt. 31.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 169
`
`
`As the party moving for transfer, Sony bears the burden on the underlying motion, and
`
`allowing Sony an opportunity for rebuttal through a reply memorandum comports with the fair
`
`application of that burden. BET’s opposition to Sony’s Motions raises new arguments that
`
`require a response. As an example, BET argues that “Mr. Hoyle has directed BET’s business
`
`from this district since at least 2008.” SCEA’s Docket, Dkt. 32 at 1. This claim is directly
`
`contradicted by representations made by BET in its application for a Certificate of Authority to
`
`conduct business in the State of Tennessee. Sony should have the opportunity to fully respond to
`
`BET’s arguments and claims, including the opportunity to address and rebut the new arguments
`
`raised by BET’s positions. The Court should have the benefit of full argument on Sony’s motion
`
`for transfer.
`
`As with any transfer motion in a case of this type, briefing must address a number of
`
`issues and circumstances. While Sony is committed to its reply being as brief as possible,
`
`addressing the issues meriting a reply requires more than the five pages normally permitted by
`
`Local Rule 7.2(e). This motion respectfully requests authorization to use up to ten (10) pages for
`
`this purpose.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 02/25/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID 170
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Glen G. Reid, Jr.______
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, 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 Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`/s/ John Flock ___ ________
`John Flock (admission pending)
`jflock@kenyon.com
`Michael E. Sander (admission pending)
`msander@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`212.425.7200
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Sony Computer
`Entertainment America LLC, Sony Mobile
`Communications (U.S.A.) Inc., and Sony
`Electronics Inc.
`
`
`
`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 25, 2013, Mr. Carter
`
`informed the undersigned by electronic mail that plaintiff could not consent, but will not oppose
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`4
`
`this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 02/25/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID 171
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60329442.1
`2/25/2013 2:40 pm
`
`s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`5