Video Professor, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Filing 41

MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 39 Brief in Opposition to Motion, MOTION for Leave to Filed Amended Response Nunc Pro Tunc by Plaintiff Video Professor, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit B - exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit B - exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit B - exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit B - exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit B - exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit B - exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit B - exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit B - exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit B - exhibit 9, # 12 Deposition Excerpts Exhibit B - exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit B - exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit C, # 15 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Smith, Gregory) Modified on 11/24/2009 to remove repetitive text (sah2, ).

Video Professor, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Doc. 41

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-00636-REB-KLM VIDEO PROFESSOR, INC. a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, V. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. PLAINTIFF 'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED RESPONSE NUNC PRO TUNC Plaintiff Video Professor, Inc. ("Plaintiff'), by and through its counsel , hereby moves for leave to file the attached amended Plaintiff s Response in Opposition to Defendant' s Motion for Summary Judgment ("Response ") nunc pro tuns, and states: Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(A), counsel for Plaintiff conferred with counsel for Defendant by email on November 23, 2009. Counsel for Defendant takes no

position with respect to the amended response , with the exception of the addition of the previously-omitted Exhibit 11, and any revisions related thereto, to which he objects. See Exhibit A. 1. On October 27, 2009, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment

and served it by the CMIECF system. 2. Plaintiff's brief was due on or before Thursday, November 19, 2009.

Dockets.Justia.com

3.

On November 18, 2009, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time within

which to file its Response. 4. On November 19, 2009, anticipating the Court would deny its motion for

an extension of time as being untimely filed, Plaintiff timely filed its Response. 5. In the response, Plaintiff referenced an exhibit on multiple occasions;

however, it inadvertently omitted the exhibit. Defendant objects to the inclusion of the exhibit and any amendments related thereto, and specifically those contained in footnote 16. 6. Plaintiff also omitted certain "pinpoint" citations, and the response

contained certain typographical and stylistic oversights. 7. The amended response, attached hereto as Exhibit B, if accepted, would It will also aid the Defendant in formulating its reply

correct the foregoing.

memorandum, and, thereafter, will assist the Court in ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment. 8. The amendments to the Response are not substantive, and may be easily

observed by reference to Exhibit C hereto, which is a "delta view" of the two documents. 9. 10. The instant motion is not presented for dilatory or other improper motives. Defendant will not be prejudiced by the amendments, and, in fact, will be

materially aided. 11. A proposed order is submitted herewith.

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the instant motion and accept , nunc pro tunc , the amended response attached as Exhibit B. Respectfully submitted this 23th day of November, 2009. FAIRFIELD AND WOODS, P.C. s/ Gregory C. Smith Gregory C. Smith Kieran A. Lasater 1700 Lincoln Street , Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone : ( 303) 830-2400 Facsimile : ( 303) 830-1033 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 23'd day of November 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via CMIECF as follows: Marc C . Levy, Esq. Faegre & Benson LLP 1700 Lincoln Street , Suite 3200 Denver , Colorado 80203

Email: [e-mail]
I further certify in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 6. 1(E) that a copy of this motion was served on the moving attorney's clients by electronic mail addressed as follows: Jean Robertson, Esq. General Counsel Video Professor, Inc. [e-mail] Wylie Boling Julie Boling

4