`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-2829 JPM
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR
`EXTENSION TO SET A SINGLE DATE TO RESPOND TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY,
`L.L.C.'S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6) AND MOTION TO
`STRIKE UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(F)
`
`COMES NOW Microsoft Corporation, by and through the undersigned counsel, and
`
`respectfully moves the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) for an extension of time, up
`
`to and including February 25, 2013, to file a response to the Motion to Strike portion of Plaintiff
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C.'s combined Motion so that the time to respond is the same for both
`
`portions of B.E. Technology's combined Motion. In support of this Motion, Microsoft states as
`
`follows:
`
`On January 25, 2013, B.E. Technology filed a combined Motion to Dismiss and Strike
`
`and supporting Memorandum. (See Dkt. No. 34.) Under Local Rule 7.2(a)(2), a response to a
`
`motion to strike must be filed within 14 days after service of the motion, (see Local Rule
`
`7.2(a)(2)), while a response to a motion to dismiss must be filed within 28 days after service of
`
`the motion under Local Rule 12.1. Thus, under the Local Rules, Microsoft would be required to
`
`respond to the Motion to Strike portion of B.E. Technology’s brief on February 11, 2013 (14
`
`days from filing, plus three additional days for electronic service under Local Rule 6.1 and
`
` M
`
` AB1 2378794 v1
`2788958-000014 02/08/2013
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 39 Filed 02/08/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 447
`
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(d) and 5(b)(2)(E)). Microsoft would then be required to
`
`respond to the Motion to Dismiss portion of B.E. Technology’s brief on February 25, 2013 (28
`
`days from filing, plus three additional days for electronic service). Through this Motion,
`
`Microsoft simply seeks, to the extent necessary, to have the due date for its response to B.E.
`
`Technology's combined Motion be the same day so that multiple responses need not be filed.
`
`Setting a single date by which Microsoft must respond to both the Motion to Strike portion and
`
`Motion to Dismiss portion of B.E. Technology's combined Motion would help streamline its
`
`response to B.E. Technology's Motion to Dismiss and Strike, reduce litigation costs, and
`
`conserve time and resources.
`
`B.E. Technology does not oppose this extension of time. Further, this Motion is made
`
`prior to the expiration of Microsoft's original time to respond to B.E. Technology’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss and Strike. Microsoft has sought no prior extension of time to respond to this Motion.
`
`Accordingly, Microsoft respectfully requests that this Court grant Microsoft an extension
`
`of time to file a response to the Motion to Strike portion of B.E. Technology’s combined Motion
`
`up to and including February 25, 2013, so that it may correspond with its deadline to respond to
`
`the Motion to Dismiss portion of B.E. Technology's combined Motion.
`
`A proposed order granting the extension of time is being submitted via electronic mail to
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`s/ Adam S. Baldridge
`Bradley E. Trammell (TN #13980)
`Adam S. Baldridge (TN #023488)
`Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
`Berkowitz, P.C.
`165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
`Memphis, TN 38103
`Telephone: 901.577.2102
`
`2
`
`the Court.
`
`February 8, 2013
`
` M
`
` AB1 2378794 v1
`2788958-000014 02/08/2013
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 39 Filed 02/08/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 448
`
`
`Email: btrammell@bakerdonelson.com
`
` abaldridge@bakerdonelson.com
`
`Kelly C. Hunsaker (Pro Hac Vice)
`Leeron G. Kalay (Pro Hac Vice)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 839-5070
`hunsaker@fr.com
`kalay@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(a)(1)(B), I hereby certify that on February 4-5, 2013, I
`consulted via telephone with counsel for Plaintiff B.E. Technology LLC, Richard Carter,
`concerning Plaintiff’s position with regard to the relief sought in this Motion. Mr. Carter
`informed me that Plaintiff does not oppose this Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Adam S. Baldridge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 8, 2013, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`document was electronically filed with the United States District Court for the Western District
`of Tennessee, and was served on all counsel by the court’s electronic filing notification or via
`email.
`
`s/ Adam S. Baldridge
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
` M
`
` AB1 2378794 v1
`2788958-000014 02/08/2013
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
