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

Filing 278

SUR-REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re #259 MOTION to Compel a Complete Response To Their Sixth Interrogatories filed by Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC. (Cawley, Douglas)

Download PDF
Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al Doc. 278 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-LED Jury Trial Demanded BEDROCK'S SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S AND MATCH.COM'S CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL A COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THEIR SIXTH INTERROGATORIES I. GOOGLE'S AND MATCH.COM'S CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL SHOULD BE DENIED In their reply brief, Google and state that Bedrock "inexplicably refuses to provide a response to Defendants' interrogatories requesting Bedrock's damages theory." See Rep. (Dkt. No. 273) at 5. Not so. As Bedrock stated in its response brief, during the meet and confer for Bedrock's motion (Dkt. No. 246), Google and refused to supplement their responses to Bedrock's fifth interrogatory unless and until Bedrock supplemented its response to Google's and's sixth interrogatory. While Bedrock refused to have its discovery efforts held hostage by Google's and's satisfaction with Bedrock's response to its damages-contention interrogatory, Bedrock did not refuse to supplement its responses to those interrogatories. Put another way, there was no discussion and consequently no impasse with respect to the relief that Google and are seeking in their cross-motion. Accordingly, Google and have not satisfied Local Rule CV-7(h). To be sure, if the parties had actually discussed the relief that Google and seek, Bedrock's position would have been that it is unable to supplement its responses to their damages-contention interrogatories because Google and have refused the basic damages-related facts that Bedrock sought (and still seeks) in its fifth interrogatory. Google and cannot deny Bedrock discovery on damages-related facts and then sincerely complain that Bedrock's damages contentions are lacking. For this reason, Bedrock respectfully requests that the Court deny Google's and's cross-motion as meritless rather than for failure to comply with Local Rule CV-7(h). -1Dallas 308472v1 II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Bedrock respectfully requests that the Court deny Google's and's cross-motion in its entirety. -2Dallas 308472v1 DATED: September 3, 2010 Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. /s/ Douglas A. Cawley Sam F. Baxter Texas Bar No. 01938000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 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 Theodore Stevenson, III Texas Bar No. 19196650 Jason D. Cassady Texas Bar No. 24045625 J. Austin Curry Texas Bar No. 24059636 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: E-mail: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC Dallas 308472v1 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 3, 2010. /s/ J. Austin Curry J. Austin Curry Dallas 308472v1

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?