Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 214

MOTION Extend page limits re 213 Response to Motion, by Software Rights Archive, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kaplan, Lee)

Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 214

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC §

v. §

§ Plaintiff, § §

GOOGLE INC., YAHOO! INC., §
lAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., AOL LLC, §

§

Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-511 (CE)

and LYCOS, INC. §
Defendants. §
§

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITS FOR CONSOLIDATED BRIEFING REGARDING DEFENDANTS' INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
Plaintiff Software Rights Archive, LLC ("SRA") files this unopposed motion to extend
all the parties' page limits to the extent that they submit consolidated briefing as to Defendants'

Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Invalidity Contentions and Plaintiffs Motion to
Strike Invalidity Contentions.

1. On December 18, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and
Supplement Invalidity Contentions ("Defendants' Motion").

2. Today, January 20, 2010, Plaintiff intends to file, along with its response to
Defendants' Motion, a Motion to Strike Invalidity Contentions ("Plaintiffs Motion"). Filing one

consolidated brief for both motions, as opposed to two separate briefs, makes sense and wil
advance the interest of efficiency, because the motions involve many of the same factual and
legal issues. Ordinarily, this Court's local rules permit parties fifteen pages for opening briefs
and fifteen pages for response briefs. L.R. CV -7(a)(2). Therefore, if Plaintiff filed two separate

briefs instead of one consolidated brief, it ordinarily would be entitled to a total of thirty pages.

Dockets.Justia.com

Plaintiff seeks a page limit of twenty-five pages for its consolidated Response to

Defendants' Motion / Plaintiff's Motion.
3. Plaintiff expects that Defendants wil

likewise file a consolidated brief replying in

support of Defendants' Motion and responding to Plaintiffs Motion. Ordinarily, this Court's
local rules permit parties five pages for reply briefs and fifteen pages for response briefs. L.R.
CV-7(a)(2). Therefore, if Defendants fied two separate briefs instead of

one consolidated brief,

they ordinarily would be entitled to a total of twenty pages. Plaintiff moves to extend

Defendants' page limit to thirty pages for their consolidated Reply Supporting Defendants'
Motion / Response to Plaintiff's Motion.
4. Plaintiff then expects to fie a consolidated brief sur-replying to Defendants'

Motion and replying in support of Plaintiff s Motion. Ordinarily, this Court's local rules permit
parties five pages for sur-reply briefs and five pages for reply briefs. L.R. CV -7(a)(2).

Therefore, if Defendants fied two separate briefs instead of one consolidated brief, they
ordinarily would be entitled to a total of ten pages. Plaintiff seeks a page limit of fifteen pages

for its consolidated Sur-Reply to Defendants' Motion / Reply Supporting Plaintiff's
Motion.

2

Respectfully submitted,

l e LL li L9e 1. Kaplan ~
LEAD ATTORNEY

State Bar No. 11094400
SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA, L.L.P.

700 Louisiana, Suite 2300
Houston, Texas 77002

[phone]
[phone] (fax)

lkaplan(Ðskv.com
Victor G. Hardy State Bar No. 00790821
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Andrew G. DiNovo State Bar No. 00790594 Adam G. Price State Bar No. 24027750

Jay D. Ellwanger State Bar No. 24036522
DiNovo PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY LLP

7000 North MoPac Expressway, Suite 350 Austin, Texas 78731 [phone]
[phone] (fax)

vhardy(Ðdpelaw.com
Of

counsel:

S. Calvin Capshaw State Bar No. 03783900
Elizabeth 1. DeRieux

State Bar No. 05770585
CAPSHAW DERIEUX 1127 Judson Road, Suite 220

P.O. Box 3999 Longview, TX 75606-3999 [phone]
[phone] (fax)

ccapshaw(Ðcapshawlaw.com

3

Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000
Robert C. Bunt

State Bar No. 00787165 Charles Ainsworth State Bar No. 0078352
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.c.

100 East Ferguson, Suite 1114

Tyler, Texas 75702 [phone]
[phone] (fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiff SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all counsel of record pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 20th day of January, 2010.

~

Lee 1. Kaplan

4