Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 288

Opposed MOTION TO SET A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Baxter, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. Defendants. CASE NO. 6:09-cv-269 Jury Trial Demanded BEDROCK'S OPPOSED MOTION TO SET A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Plaintiff Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC ("Bedrock") respectfully requests the Court to set a case management conference to address some of the discovery disputes pending before the Court. 1 Currently, the following motions are before the Court: Dkt. No. 210 246 270 271 Motion Bedrock's Sealed Motion to Compel From Google a Complete Response to Bedrock's Third Interrogatory and Production of Google's Source Code Bedrock's Sealed Motion to Compel from Google and Match.com a Complete Response to Bedrock's Fifth Interrogatory Bedrock's Sealed Motion to Compel from AOL and MySpace a Complete Response to Bedrock's Fourth Interrogatory Bedrock's Sealed Motion to Compel Production of Documents from MySpace A common issue to these motions is whether the discovery sought by Bedrock is relevant. Indeed, Defendants AOL and MySpace make the same arguments and cite the same law in advocating their relevance objections as did Google and Match.com. Further, Bedrock expects 1 During the parties' collaboration of the Joint Claim Construction Statement, Bedrock drafted its section to include requests for hearings on its outstanding motions. The Defendants--without -1- other Defendants to make these same relevance objections/arguments in refusing Bedrock discovery. Bedrock requests this case management conference as an alternative to burdening the Court with future, duplicative motions regarding the scope of discovery in the District. Bedrock further requests this case management conference because, if Bedrock is forced into motions practice to obtain every incremental piece of discovery from the Defendants, Bedrock will be severely prejudiced in getting the totality of the discovery it needs to prepare its case for trial as scheduled, which is April 11, 2011. For the foregoing reasons, Bedrock respectfully requests that the Court set a case management hearing for October 7, 2010, which is the same date as the Markman hearing in this case. Bedrock's permission--altered Bedrock's section and removed this request. -2- DATED: September 14, 2010 Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. /s/ Douglas A. Cawley Sam F. Baxter Texas Bar No. 01938000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com 104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 0 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 923-9000 Facsimile: (903) 923-9099 Douglas A. Cawley, Lead Attorney Texas Bar No. 04035500 dcawley@mckoolsmith.com Theodore Stevenson, III Texas Bar No. 19196650 tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com Jason D. Cassady Texas Bar No. 24045625 jcassady@mckoolsmith.com J. Austin Curry Texas Bar No. 24059636 acurry@mckoolsmith.com McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-978-4000 Facsimile: 214-978-4044 Robert M. Parker Texas Bar No. 15498000 Robert Christopher Bunt Texas Bar No. 00787165 PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: 903-531-3535 Facsimile: 903-533-9687 E-mail: rmparker@pbatyler.com E-mail: rcbunt@pbatyler.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on counsel of record via email on September 14, 2010. /s/ J. Austin Curry J. Austin Curry CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE On September 13, 2010, counsel for Bedrock sent a draft of this motion to counsel for each Defendant and asked if they would consent to or oppose the motion. All Defendants responded on September 14, 2010 that they oppose the motion. Counsel for Softlayer, Amazon, and Yahoo opposed the motion primarily because they believe that a case management conference is unnecessary as to their clients, and counsel for Google, Match.com, MySpace, and AOL oppose the motion primarily because they take issue with the reasons that Bedrock gives in this motion for needing a case management conference. Discussions have conclusively ended in impasse, leaving an open issue for the Court to resolve. /s/ J. Austin Curry J. Austin Curry -4-