`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 6:21-cv-00755-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GENTEX CORPORATION and INDIGO
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC. and META
`PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO
`META’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Gentex Corporation and Indigo Technologies, LLC (“Gentex”) respectfully
`
`move pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(b) and (e)(1) for leave to submit the attached sur-reply (Ex. A)
`
`in Opposition to Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC’s
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California, ECF No.
`
`39.
`
`Defendants’ June 3, 2022 reply brief in support of their Motion to Transfer, ECF No. 66,
`
`attached new evidence that Plaintiffs have not been afforded an opportunity to address. In
`
`particular, the brief attaches three new declarations from Defendants’ employees: the Declaration
`
`of Andrew Melim (ECF No. 66-1), Declaration of Jonathan Wright (ECF No. 66-2), and a second
`
`Declaration of Nicholas Wong (ECF No. 66-3). That testimony relates to information available to
`
`Defendants at the time they filed the Motion to Transfer, and Defendants’ reply brief raises new
`
`arguments based on this evidence. Because Gentex did not have an opportunity to address this
`
`new evidence and argument, to the extent the Court does not strike these new declarations and the
`
`arguments based on them, Gentex respectfully request that the Court consider the attached sur-
`
`reply brief.
`
`“[I]t is within the sound discretion of the courts to grant or deny leave to file such additional
`
`briefing.” Misson Toxicology, LLC v. Unitedhealthcare Ins. Co., 499 F. Supp. 3d 350, 359 (W.D.
`
`Tex. 2020). In deciding whether to grant such a motion, the Court “should also weigh the interests
`
`of justice.” Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 338 (5th Cir. 2017). And where, as here, a
`
`reply brief raises new evidence, the Court must “give[] ‘the non-movant an adequate opportunity
`
`to respond prior to a ruling.’” See RedHawk Holdings Corp. v. Schreiber Tr. of Schreiber Living
`
`Tr., 836 F. App’x 232, 235 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Thompson v. Dall. City Attorney’s Office, 913
`
`F.3d 464, 471 (5th Cir. 2019)); see also, e.g., Mission Toxicology, LLC, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 360
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/23/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`(permitting surreply to address “a supplemental appendix” submitted with a reply brief); Johnson
`
`v. Sw. Rsch. Inst., 384 F. Supp. 3d 722, 730 (W.D. Tex. 2019) (permitting sur-reply where
`
`movant’s reply “presented new evidence in support of her request”).
`
`Plaintiffs should have an opportunity to respond to the new evidence that Defendants
`
`submitted, and to address the new arguments that Defendants have made in reliance on this
`
`evidence. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request leave to file the attached sur-reply, which only
`
`addresses points raised by Defendants’ new declarations. Plaintiffs understand Defendants oppose
`
`this motion.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ G. Blake Thompson
`G. Blake Thompson
`State Bar 24042033
`blake@themannfirm.com
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`mark@themannfirm.com
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`201 E. Howard St.
`Henderson, Texas 75654
`Tel: 903-657-8540
`Fax: 903-657-6003
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/23/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David I. Berl (pro hac vice)
`Adam D. Harber (pro hac vice)
`Elise M. Baumgarten (pro hac vice)
`Melissa B. Collins (pro hac vice)
`D. Shayon Ghosh (pro hac vice)
`Arthur John Argall III (pro hac vice)
`Andrew G. Borrasso (pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine Avenue S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Tel: 202-434-5000
`Fax: 202-434-5029
`dberl@wc.com
`aharber@wc.com
`ebaumgarten@wc.com
`mcollins@wc.com
`sghosh@wc.com
`aargall@wc.com
`aborrasso@wc.com
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/23/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs met and conferred with counsel for Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC on June 8, 2022. Defendants oppose the filing of this
`
`motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ G. Blake Thompson
`G. Blake Thompson
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on June 8, 2022, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served with a
`
`copy of the foregoing via the Court's CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`/s/ G. Blake Thompson
`G. Blake Thompson
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`