`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`INC.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`its Reply, Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`As Google suggested
`
`in
`
`(“Touchstream”) respectfully moves for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to Defendant Google
`
`LLC’s Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Dkt. No. 26). That sur-reply
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`In its reply in support of its motion to transfer (Dkt. No. 26), defendant Google LLC
`
`(“Google”) argues for the first time that this case should be transferred to the Austin Division of
`
`the Western District of Texas. That is, Google newly argued for an intra-district transfer to Austin
`
`should its request for an inter-district transfer to the Northern District of California be denied.
`
`Google also makes statements about the location of certain Texas witnesses in support of its
`
`argument. Recognizing that these are newly presented arguments, Google’s reply invited
`
`Touchstream to file a sur-reply to address them. (Dkt. 50 at 5). Touchstream’s proposed sur-reply
`
`addresses these new arguments and statements.
`
`As Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to respond to these arguments and statements, there
`
`is good cause for the filing of a sur-reply. See, e.g. Mission Technology, LLC v. Unitedhealthcare
`
`Ins. Co., 499 F. Supp. 3d 350, 360 (W.D. Tex. 2020) (granting leave to file sur-reply when movant
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 52 Filed 05/04/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`“submitted a supplemental appendix with its reply.”); Donnelly v. Nissan Motor Co., No. 5:19-cv-
`
`0882-JKP, 2019 WL 6340153, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2019) (granting leave to file sur-reply
`
`when movant raised new arguments in its reply brief).
`
`Counsel for Touchstream has conferred with counsel for Google, and Google does not
`
`oppose this request. Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(B), Touchstream respectfully requests that the
`
`Court grant its motion for leave to file a sur-reply and direct the clerk of this Court to file the
`
`attached sur-reply.
`
`Date: May 4, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`
`
`/s/ Jordan T. Bergsten
`Jordan T. Bergsten, pro hac vice
`B. Trent Webb, pro hac vice
`Ryan D. Dykal, pro hac vice
`Samuel J. LaRoque, pro hac vice
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 474-6550/F: (816) 421-5547
`Email: jbergsten@shb.com
`Email: slaroque@shb.com
`Email: bwebb@shb.com
`Email: rdykal@shb.com
`
`
`Fiona A. Bell (TX Bar No. 24052288)
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
`600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 227-2008/F: (713)-227-9508
`Email: fbell@shb.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 52 Filed 05/04/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using
`
`the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (“NEF”) to all counsel of record
`
`who have appeared in this case per Local Rule CV-5(b) on May 4, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jordan T. Bergsten
` Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
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
