Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 269

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Its Oppositions to Apple Inc.'s Motions for Summary Judgment by Mirror Worlds, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Solo, Alexander)

Download PDF
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc. Doc. 269 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:08-CV-88 LED Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. APPLE INC., Defendant. APPLE INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Counterclaim Defendants. MIRROR WORLDS, LLC'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR ITS OPPOSITIONS TO APPLE INC.'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(l), Plaintiff Mirror Worlds, LLC ("Mirror Worlds") respectively submits this unopposed motion to exceed the page limit for Mirror Worlds' oppositions to Apple's five motions for summary judgment filed on July 22, 2010 (D.I. 250, 254256, 258) opposing Apple Inc.'s ("Apple") motions for Summary Judgment (D.I. 221, 223-226). Mirror Worlds' five opposition briefs (filed July 22, 2010) (D.I. 250, 254-256, 258) totaled sixty pages, which Mirror Worlds believed was consistent with the sixty-page limit set forth in Local Rule CV-7(a)(3)(B). However, following such filings Apple advised that Mirror Worlds had exceeded the sixty-page limit by fifteen pages based on counting a sixth brief filed on January 1 NY 72881444 Dockets.Justia.com 15, 2010 (D.I. 163) in connection with the Court's Markman proceedings. Accordingly, Mirror Worlds hereby moves for leave to file fifteen extra pages (i.e., an average of three extra pages per opposition). Mirror Worlds was unaware of its inadvertent mistake in calculating the pages until July 23, when Apple notified Mirror Worlds by email. Since then, Mirror Worlds has met and conferred with Apple in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of the issue. Apple has advised Mirror Worlds that it will not oppose Mirror Worlds' request so long as Apple receives 20 pages for its Summary Judgment Reply Briefs. Mirror Worlds is agreeable to Apple's request. Accordingly, the accompanying Proposed Order addresses both Mirror Worlds' and Apple's requests for extra pages. Mirror Worlds respectfully requests that this Court allow it to exceed the page limits as it unintentionally did not account for its prior opposition brief. Alternatively, Mirror Worlds respectfully requests the Court allow Mirror Worlds to modify its responses to comply with the rules. Dated: July 28, 2010 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Alexander Solo Otis Carroll, Lead Counsel (Texas States Bar No. 03895700) Deborah Race (Texas State Bar No. 16448700) IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Fax: (903) 581-1071 Email: Fedserv@icklaw.com Joseph Diamante (Pro Hac Vice) Kenneth L. Stein (Pro Hac Vice) Ian G. DiBernardo (Pro Hac Vice) Alexander Solo (Pro Hac Vice) STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, N.Y. 10038 2 NY 72881444 Tel: (212) 806-5400 Email: asolo@stroock.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, MIRROR WORLDS, LLC 3 NY 72881444 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that Mirror Worlds counsel has in good faith conferred Apple's counsel in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. Counsel of record for Mirror Worlds (Alexander Solo, together with Ian DiBernardo of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP) conducted a telephonic meet and confer with Apple's counsel of record (Allan Soobert, Christian Platt) on July 27, 2010. /s/ Alexander Solo Alexander Solo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document this 28th day of July, 2010, via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). /s/ Alexander Solo 4 NY 72881444

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?