`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, MEMORANDUM,
`AND LR 7.2 CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTATION
`
`Pursuant to LR7.2(c), Defendant People Media, Inc. (“People Media”) hereby moves for
`
`leave to file a reply memorandum, not to exceed ten pages in length, in support of People
`
`Media’s Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF #35) within seven days from the grant of leave to do so.
`
`In support of this motion, People Media respectfully states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On February 5, 2013, People Media moved to transfer the venue of this action to
`
`the United States District Court for the Northern District of California or, alternatively, to the
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
`
`2.
`
`On February 22, 2013, Plaintiff B.E Technologies, L.L.C. (“B.E. Technologies”)
`
`filed a 20-page response brief, along with two supporting affidavits (ECF #40).
`
`3.
`
`This case is in a very early stage, and is currently stayed pending the
`
`determination of the subject Motion to Transfer Venue. See Order (ECF #38). Each of the 18
`
`other patent infringement lawsuits filed by B.E. Technologies against other defendants is also
`
`stayed pending the determination of similar motions.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 41 Filed 03/01/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 413
`
`4.
`
`The Motion to Transfer Venue raises an issue of great importance in this case. Its
`
`resolution will determine which Court’s resources will be employed in managing this case, as
`
`well as the financial and other resources the parties, and even non-parties, will be required to
`
`devote to this litigation. Consequently, it is particularly important that People Media, which
`
`bears the burden on the underlying motion, be allowed to fully address the arguments and
`
`evidence presented by B.E. in its response brief.
`
`6.
`
`B.E.’s response memorandum contains arguments that are contradictory or could
`
`not reasonably have been anticipated by People Media. For example, B.E. has argued that this
`
`action should be consolidated with its 18 other contemporaneously-filed patent lawsuits (ECF
`
`#25), yet in arguing against transfer, B.E. frames the issue in terms of the circumstances and
`
`convenience of the two individual parties to the instant action.
`
`7.
`
`Like in an analogous Section 1404 motion in a case of this type, briefing must
`
`address multiple factors and circumstances. While People Media is committed to its reply being
`
`as concise as possible, coverage of the issues meriting a reply appears likely to require 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 41 Filed 03/01/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 414
`
`CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTATION
`
`Pursuant to LR 7.2(a)(1)(B), the undersigned certifies that counsel for People Media,
`
`Jonathan Rose, spoke with counsel for B.E. Technologies, Adam Simpson, by telephone on
`
`February 28, 2013, and received follow-up correspondence from Mr. Simpson by e-mail, in
`
`which Mr. Simpson conditioned assent to the relief sought in the instant motion on a stipulation
`
`that People Media “not introduce new evidentiary matter and does not introduce arguments that
`
`could reasonably have been anticipated when it filed its original motion.” People Media believes
`
`that such a condition is unduly vague and subjective, and, in any event, inappropriate under the
`
`present circumstances. Therefore the parties are at an impasse.
`
` s/ Jonathan D. Rose
`Jonathan D. Rose
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 41 Filed 03/01/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID 415
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` s/ Jonathan D. Rose
`Jonathan D. Rose (No. 20967)
`BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
`1600 Division Street, Suite 700
`Nashville, Tennessee 37203
`(615) 252-2308
`E-Mail: jrose@babc.com
`
`Steven G. Schortgen
`steve.schortgen@klgates.com
`Jennifer Klein Ayers
`jennifer.ayers@klgates.com
`K&L GATES LLP
`1717 Main Street, Suite 2800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 939-5500
`
`Sanjay K. Murthy
`sanjay.murthy@klgates.com
`Christopher E. Hanba
`christopher.hanba@klgates.com
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60602-4207
`(312) 372-1121
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 41 Filed 03/01/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID 416
`
`CERIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on March 1, 2013, the foregoing is being served the foregoing via the
`Court’s Electronic Filing System, upon the following:
`
`Craig Robert Kaufman
`Robert Edward Freitas
`Hsiang Hong Lin
`Qudas B. Olaniran
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN, LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`Richard M. Carter
`Adam Calhoun Simpson
`MARTIN TATE MORROW & MARSTON
`International Place, Tower II
`6410 Poplar Ave., Ste. 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jonathan D. Rose
`Jonathan D. Rose
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3