Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 34 Filed 02/08/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 388
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`SPARK NETWORKS, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION (INCLUDING MEMORANDUM) TO ENLARGE TIME
`FOR RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSES (DOC. 31)
`(WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Spark Networks, Inc. respectfully moves the Court to enter the accompanying
`
`proposed Order, enlarging by 14 days the original period for defendant’s response to the motion
`
`to strike defenses from defendant’s answer, filed by plaintiff B.E. Technology on January 25,
`
`2013 (Doc. 31). This relief is authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A), and requested on the
`
`following bases:
`
`1. As set forth in the Certificate of Consultation below, plaintiff does not oppose this
`
`relief.
`
`2. This motion is being made within the original period of 14 days, which expires on
`
`February 11, 20131; and no previous enlargement of such period has been sought.
`
`
`1 / This calculation includes the 3 days added under Rule 6(d).
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 34 Filed 02/08/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 389
`
`
`3. Plaintiff’s motion to strike involves issues relating to the comparative requirements of
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(1)(A) when defendant “state[d] … its defenses,” and Rule 8(a)(2) and
`
`associated case law, which governed the original pleading of claims that defendant was
`
`answering. Plaintiff is believed to have filed similar motions to strike in at least a large majority
`
`of the 18 other actions in this Court asserting the same family of U.S. Patents. Moreover, in
`
`those cases where the defendants’ answers included counterclaims, plaintiff is believed to have
`
`universally filed motions for dismissal of the counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6), which include
`
`requests to strike defenses in the same answers. Thus, the Court is going to be presented with
`
`the same legal issues in virtually all 19 of the related actions, once the motions to dismiss and/or
`
`strike are responded to. Defendant is diligently preparing a response appropriate to such issues;
`
`and particularly taking into account the many other activities simultaneously occurring in the
`
`action (including attempts to understand massive infringement contention documents), defendant
`
`genuinely needs the additional time requested.
`
`4. As manifest from plaintiff’s agreement not to oppose, the requested relief would not
`
`prejudice plaintiff. It could, instead, actually assist the orderly disposition of the related motions
`
`pending in at least the majority of the 19 cases. In the cases with counterclaims, where plaintiff
`
`has filed motions to both dismiss and strike, the original response period for those motions
`
`already is 28 days, or February 25.2 The 14 additional days sought here would make this
`
`defendant’s response, having the Rule 8(b) defense pleading issues in common, due on the same
`
`
`2 / Again, calculated with the 3 days added under Rule 6(d). Counsel for plaintiff and defendant
`have consulted and are understood to share the belief that where motions in the same document
`seek both dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and striking of material under Rule 12(f), it seems
`appropriate for the responding party to likewise file a corresponding single document fully
`addressing the original, rather than split the response into two documents with two different
`deadlines.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 34 Filed 02/08/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 390
`
`
`day. The same relief is being sought in other cases, for the same reasons of need, consistency,
`
`and efficiency.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`
`
`The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that, prior to the foregoing motion’s filing,
`
`successful consultation was held with Richard Carter, counsel for plaintiff, resulting in
`
`permission to state that plaintiff does not oppose the enlargement of time sought in the motion.
`
`/s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 34 Filed 02/08/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 391
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Laurence S. Rogers (admission pending)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: 212.596.9033
`Facsimile: 212-596-9090
`Laurence.Rogers@ropesgray.com
`
`Brandon H. Stroy (admission pending)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Phone: 650.617.4028
`Facsimile: 650.617.4090
`Brandon.Stroy@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60322969.1
`2/8/2013 1:39 pm
`
`
`
`4