`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY L.L.C.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 2:12-CV-02866-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`))))))))))))
`
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY
`HOLDINGS LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION (INCLUDING MEMORANDUM) FOR
`ONE-HOUR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
`(WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION)
`
`Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B), defendant Motorola Mobility Holdings, LLC
`
`respectfully moves the Court to enter the accompanying proposed Order, enlarging the time for
`
`defendant to file its reply memorandum supporting its pending motion to transfer venue by one
`
`hour, to and including 1:00 A.M. Central Time on January 30, 2013.
`
`The request for this relief arises from defendant's unsuccessful multiple attempts, prior to
`
`11:59 p.m. on January 29, the deadline set in the Order granting leave for the reply, to
`
`electronically file the reply and related exhibits. It appears that defendant's difficulties were
`
`caused by internet disruption from the storm that commenced earlier in the evening. The papers
`
`were successfully filed by counsel in another area of the country, but this was not completed
`
`until shortly after midnight (Doc. 35).
`
`Rule 6(b)(1)(B) authorizes the Court to enlarge the time fixed for an act subsequent to its
`
`expiration if the failure resulted from excusable neglect. In this instance, defendant respectfully
`
`submits that the failure was excusable, and had virtually no impact on the Court or the parties,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02866-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 01/30/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 352
`
`
`
`because the brief was successfully filed within 1 hour of the original deadline, and almost
`
`certainly before it would have been accessed for review by the Court or the opposing party.
`
`Defendant could not complete the reply and begin the filing process until the evening of January
`
`29, due to travel by one of the persons involved in completing the document. However, had the
`
`weather and internet disruption not occurred, ample time would have been available for timely
`
`filing in the normal ECF system environment.
`
`As set forth in the Certificate of Consultation below, plaintiff does not oppose this relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Of counsel:
`
`A. John P. Mancini
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1675 Broadway
`New York, NY 10019-5820
`(212) 506-2500
`jmancini@mayerbrown.com
`
`Brian A. Rosenthal
`Ann Marie Duffy
`MAYER BROWN, LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 263-3000
`brosenthal@mayerbrown.com
`aduffy@mayerbrown.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02866-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 01/30/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 353
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that prior to filing the foregoing motion, consultation
`
`was held with Richard Carter, attorney for plaintiff, and resulted in authority to state that plaintiff
`
`does not oppose the relief sought.
`
`
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`60318630.1
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3