Case 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp Document 38 Filed 03/01/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 408
`
`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-02834-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MATCH.COM, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, MEMORANDUM,
`AND LR 7.2 CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTATION
`
`Pursuant to LR7.2(c), Defendant Match.com L.L.C. (“Match.com”) hereby moves for
`
`leave to file a reply memorandum, not to exceed ten pages in length, in support of Match.com’s
`
`Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF #32) within seven days from the grant of leave to do so. In
`
`support of this motion, Match.com respectfully states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On February 5, 2013, Match.com 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 #37).
`
`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 #35). 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
`
`
`
`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-02834-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MATCH.COM, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, MEMORANDUM,
`AND LR 7.2 CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTATION
`
`Pursuant to LR7.2(c), Defendant Match.com L.L.C. (“Match.com”) hereby moves for
`
`leave to file a reply memorandum, not to exceed ten pages in length, in support of Match.com’s
`
`Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF #32) within seven days from the grant of leave to do so. In
`
`support of this motion, Match.com respectfully states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On February 5, 2013, Match.com 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 #37).
`
`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 #35). 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-02834-JPM-tmp Document 38 Filed 03/01/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 409
`
`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 Match.com, 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 Match.com. 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 Match.com 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-02834-JPM-tmp Document 38 Filed 03/01/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 410
`
`CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTATION
`
`Pursuant to LR 7.2(a)(1)(B), the undersigned certifies that counsel for Match.com,
`
`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 Match.com “not introduce new evidentiary matter and does not introduce arguments that
`
`could reasonably have been anticipated when it filed its original motion.” Match.com 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-02834-JPM-tmp Document 38 Filed 03/01/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID 411
`
`
`
`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-02834-JPM-tmp Document 38 Filed 03/01/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID 412
`
`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
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
