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)

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

Dockets.Justia.com

I. GOOGLE'S AND MATCH.COM'S CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL SHOULD BE DENIED In their reply brief, Google and Match.com 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 Match.com refused to supplement their responses to Bedrock's fifth interrogatory unless and until Bedrock supplemented its response to Google's and Match.com's sixth interrogatory. While Bedrock refused to have its discovery efforts held hostage by Google's and Match.com'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 Match.com are seeking in their cross-motion. Accordingly, Google and Match.com have not satisfied Local Rule CV-7(h). To be sure, if the parties had actually discussed the relief that Google and Match.com seek, Bedrock's position would have been that it is unable to supplement its responses to their damages-contention interrogatories because Google and Match.com have refused the basic damages-related facts that Bedrock sought (and still seeks) in its fifth interrogatory. Google and Match.com 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 Match.com'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 Match.com'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. [e-mail] 104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 0 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Douglas A. Cawley, Lead Attorney Texas Bar No. 04035500 [e-mail] Theodore Stevenson, III Texas Bar No. 19196650 [e-mail] Jason D. Cassady Texas Bar No. 24045625 [e-mail] J. Austin Curry Texas Bar No. 24059636 [e-mail] McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: [phone] 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: [phone] Facsimile: 903-533-9687 E-mail: [e-mail] 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