`Case 2:12—cv—O2829—JPM—tmp Document 42 Filed 02/14/13 Page 1 of 4 Page|D 460
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`IVHCROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`3
`3
`5 Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-2829 JPM
`3
`3
`
` j:j:j
`
`MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY
`SUPPORTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`
`COMES NOW Defendant, Microsoft Corporation, and Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c),
`
`respectfully moves for leave to file a reply memorandum, not exceeding ten (10) pages in length,
`
`supporting Microsoft’s pending Motion to Transfer Venue to The Western District of
`
`Washington, or in the Alternative, to The Northern District of California. (ECF No. 30 )
`
`In support of this motion, Microsoft respectfully submits the following:
`
`This action was commenced on September 21, 2012 (ECF No. 1). Microsoft timely
`
`responded to the complaint on December 31, 2012 (ECF No. 27). On January 18, 2013,
`
`Microsoft filed a motion and supporting documents seeking transfer of this action to the
`
`Western District of Washington or in the alternative to the Northern District of California under
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) filed a response
`
`opposing such transfer on February 4, 2013 (ECF No. 38).
`
`Determining the most convenient venue is among the most important matters the Court
`
`will decide in this action. It determines how the Court will expend its resources managing and
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 42 Filed 02/14/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 461
`Case 2:12—cv—O2829—JPM—tmp Document 42 Filed 02/14/13 Page 2 of 4 Page|D 461
`
`deciding the case, and will significantly affect the burdens imposed upon the parties and
`
`witnesses. The import of deciding such motions has recently been highlighted in the Federal
`
`Circuit’s ruling in In re EMC Corp, Misc. No. 142, 2013 WL 324154 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2013).
`
`Microsoft’s transfer motion merits thorough consideration of all relevant facts, arguments, and
`
`authorities.
`
`As the moving party, Microsoft bears the burden on the underlying motion. Allowing
`
`Microsoft an opportimity for rebuttal, through a reply memorandum, comports with fair
`
`application of that burden.
`
`B.E.’s opposition includes additional facts and arguments that require a response. For
`
`example, in its opposition B.E. argues that although the company registered with the Tennessee
`
`Secretary of State in September 2012,
`
`Hoyle has directed B.E.’s business from this District
`
`since at least 2008.” (ECF No. 31). This representation is directly contradicted by
`
`representations made by B.E. in its application for Certificate of Authority to practice in
`
`Tennessee. Microsoft should have the opportimity to fully respond to B.E.’s arguments,
`
`including the opportunity to address the new issues raised by B.E. ’s positions. The Court should
`
`have the benefit of full argument on Microsoft’s motion for transfer.
`
`As with any Section 1404 motion in a case of this type, briefing must address a number
`
`of issues and circumstances. While Microsoft is committed to its reply being as concise as
`
`possible, coverage of the issues meriting a reply requires 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.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 42 Filed 02/14/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 462
`Case 2:12—cv—O2829—JPM—tmp Document 42 Filed 02/14/13 Page 3 of 4 Page|D 462
`
`February 14, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Bradley E. Trammell
`Bradley E. Trammell (TN #13980)
`Adam Baldridge (TN #023488)
`Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
`Berkowitz, P.C.
`165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
`Memphis, TN 38103
`Telephone: 901.577.2121
`Email: btramme1l@bakerdonelson.com
`Email: 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
`Email: hunsaker@fr.com
`Email: ka1ay@fi'.com
`
`Attorneysfor Defendant
`MICROSOFT CORPORA TION
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 42 Filed 02/14/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 463
`Case 2:12—cv—O2829—JPM—tmp Document 42 Filed 02/14/13 Page 4 of 4 Page|D 463
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(a)(l)(B), I hereby certify that on February 8, 2013, Leeron G.
`Kalay, counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corporation, consulted via telephone with counsel for
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Craig Kaufinan, who informed Mr. Kalay that Plaintiff
`opposes this Motion.
`
`s/ Bradley E. Trammell
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 14, 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/ Bradley E. Trammell
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
