LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc. et al

Filing 229

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 226 Motion to Strike ; granting 227 Motion For Leave To Rely On Its Currently Filed Memorandum Of Law; Defendants shall file a response to LendingTrees Motion To Compel Discovery. (Document No. 224), on or before November 13, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 10/29/2012. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-439-FDW-DCK
LENDINGTREE, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ZILLOW, INC., NEXTAG, INC.,
)
QUINSTREET, INC., QUINSTREET MEDIA, )
INC., ADCHEMY, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants Zillow, Inc. And Adchemy,
Inc.’s Motion To Strike” (Document No. 226) and “LendingTree, LLC’s Motion For Leave To Rely
On Its Currently Filed Memorandum Of Law...” (Document No. 227) filed October 25, 2012. These
motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and
immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motions and the record, and in
the interests of judicial economy and efficient case management, the undersigned will deny in part
and grant in part Defendants’ motion to strike, and grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave.
By their instant motion, Defendants Zillow and Adchemy request that the Court strike
Plaintiff’s “Memorandum Of Law Supporting LendingTree, LLC’s Motion To Compel Discovery
...” (Document No. 224-1). (Document No. 226). Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s memorandum
exceeds the word limit, lacks a certificate of compliance with the word limit, and that Plaintiff never
sought leave to exceed the word limit. Id. In the alternative, Defendants request that they be
allowed an extension of the word limit, and additional time, to respond to “LendingTree’s Motion
To Compel Discovery...” (Document No. 224).

Plaintiff’s “...Motion For Leave To Rely On Its Currently Filed Memorandum...” (Document
No. 227) was filed the same day as Defendant’s motion to strike. Plaintiff’s motion essentially
requests that the motion to strike be denied, or that Plaintiff be allowed to file two substitute motions
to compel. (Document No. 227). Plaintiff’s motion apologizes to the Court for its error in filing a
brief that exceeded the Court’s word limit. Id. Plaintiff further suggests that the existing
memorandum is more efficient than filing separate memoranda against each Defendant. Id.
As Plaintiff now seems to acknowledge, the current dispute was avoidable if it had sought
leave to file additional pages. However, the undersigned also believes that this matter could have
been amicably resolved by a joint motion, rather than the instant cross motions.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendants Zillow, Inc. And Adchemy, Inc.’s
Motion To Strike” (Document No. 226) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the Court will
deny the motion to strike, but will allow the alternative request for relief. As such, Defendants shall
file a response to “LendingTree’s Motion To Compel Discovery...” (Document No. 224), not to
exceed 5,000 words, on or before November 13, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “LendingTree, LLC’s Motion For Leave To Rely On
Its Currently Filed Memorandum Of Law...” (Document No. 227) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ further failure to abide by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure or the rules and orders of this Court, including the requirement to make good
faith efforts to resolve disputes without Court intervention, will likely lead to sanctions. See Local
Rule 7.1(B).
SO ORDERED.

Signed: October 29, 2012