`Case 2:12—cv—O2832—JPM—tmp Document 29 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 3 Page|D 301
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B. E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`SPARK NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:12-cV—O2832-JPM-tmp
`
`RESPONSE OF B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC TO MOTION OF
`
`SPARK NETWORKS, INC. TO FILE REPLY SUPPORTING
`DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER (D.E. 28)
`
`Comes now B.E. Technology, L.L.C. ("B.E. Technology") and responds to the Motion Of
`
`Spark Networks, Inc. To File Reply Supporting Defendant's Motion To Transfer (D.E. 28) as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, Spark Networks, Inc. ("Spark") 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 if Spark would agree not to introduce new
`
`evidentiary matter and not to present for the first time arguments that reasonably could have been
`
`anticipated before Spark filed its original motion and memorandum. Spark 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
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 29 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 302
`Case 2:12—cv—O2832—JPM—tmp Document 29 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 3 Page|D 302
`
`memorandum.
`
`4.
`
`BE. Technology believes that permitting new evidentiary matter after B.E.
`
`Technology has responded to arguments and evidence relied upon by Spark 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 Spark 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, P.C.
`
`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@ftk1aw.com
`jlin@ftklaw.com
`qo1aniran@ftklaw.com
`dweinberg@ftk1aw.com
`
`Attorneys for B. E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`K)
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 29 Filed 01/23/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 303
`Case 2:12—cv—O2832—JPM—tmp Document 29 Filed 01/23/13 Page 3 of 3 Page|D 303
`
`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\Spark Networks\Pleadings\Response to Spark Motion to File Reply.docx
`
`D.)