`Case 2:12—cv—O2830—JPM—tmp Document 34 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 3 Page|D 251
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B. E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv—O2830—JPM—tmp
`
`RESPONSE OF B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. TO MOTION OF
`
`GOOGLE, INC. TO FILE REPLY SUPPORTING
`
`DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER (D.E. 31)
`
`Comes now B.E. Technology, L.L.C. ("B.E. Technology") and responds to the Motion Of
`
`Google, Inc. To File Reply Supporting Defendant's Motion To Transfer (DE. 31) as follows:
`
`l.
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, Google, Inc. ("Google") asked B.E. Technology if it
`
`would oppose a motion to file a reply brief and to extend the page limit for reply briefs from five
`
`to ten pages.
`
`2.
`
`B.E. Technology responded with the attached email (EXHIBIT A) that it did not
`
`oppose the filling of a reply brief up to ten pages in length if Google would agree not to
`
`introduce new evidentiary matter and not to present for the first time arguments that reasonably
`
`could have been anticipated before Google filed its original motion and memorandum. Google
`
`responded that it could not agree that no new evidentiary matter would be offered with its reply.
`
`3.
`
`B.E. Technology does not believe a reply brief should be used to advance new
`
`evidence or new arguments that should have been presented with the original motion and
`
`memorandum.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 34 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 252
`Case 2:12—cv—O2830—JPM—tmp Document 34 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 3 Page|D 252
`
`4.
`
`B.E. Technology believes that permitting new evidentiary matter after B.E.
`
`Technology has responded to arguments and evidence relied upon by Google will unduly
`
`prolong proceedings on this motion and disadvantage B.E. Technology, which is confronted with
`
`arguments but no opportunity to respond. Using a reply brief to introduce new arguments and
`
`evidence will lead to unnecessary and unproductive serial motion practice.
`
`Accordingly, B.E. Technology does not oppose the motion unless Google intends to offer
`
`new arguments or evidentiary matter in its reply.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Richard M. Carter
`
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`Adam C. Simpson (TN B.P.R. #24705)
`MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON, PC.
`
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119-4839
`Telephone: (901)522-9000
`Facsimile: (901) 527-3746
`rcarter@martintate.com
`asimpson@martintate.com
`
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 15945)
`James Lin (CA Bar No. 241472)
`Qudus B. Olaniran (CA Bar No. 267838)
`Daniel J. Weinberg (CA Bar No. 227159)
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`Telephone: (650) 593-6300
`Facsimile: (650)593-6301
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`jlin@ftl<law.com
`qolaniran@ftl<law.com
`dweinberg@ftk1aw.com
`
`Attorneys for B. E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`Ix)
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 34 Filed 01/23/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 253
`Case 2:12—cv—O2830—JPM—tmp Document 34 Filed 01/23/13 Page 3 of 3 Page|D 253
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on January 23, 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/ Richard M. Carter
`
`T;\ColemanA\CarterR\B E Technology, LLC\Google\Pleadings\Response to Google Motion to File Reply.docx
`
`M9
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
