`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` No.: 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC’s (“B.E. Technology”) Motion for
`
`Oral Argument (ECF No. 44), filed March 18, 2013. B.E. Technology seeks oral argument
`
`regarding Defendant People Media, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “People Media”) Motion to Change
`
`Venue (ECF No. 35), filed February 5, 2013. Plaintiff filed its Response in Opposition to
`
`Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 40) on February 22, 2013. With leave of Court, Defendant filed
`
`its Reply (ECF No. 43) on March 11, 2013.
`
`B.E. Technology asserts that an oral hearing on the Motion will “enable [Plaintiff]
`
`adequately to respond to the arguments and evidence presented by [People Media’s] reply
`
`memoranda,” and “provide the Court a forum to ask any questions it may have before deciding
`
`these important issues.” (ECF No. 44 at 1–2.) Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 1.2 and Local Rule
`
`7.2(d), the Court finds that a hearing is not necessary. Plaintiff’s Motion is, therefore, DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jon P. McCalla_______
`CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE