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

Filing 606

RESPONSE in Opposition re #589 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Defendants Motion for Leave to Exceed Ten Motions in Limine filed by Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC. (Cawley, Douglas) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/21/2011: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (kls, ).

Download PDF
Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al Doc. 606 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., CITIWARE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, GOOGLE INC., YAHOO! INC., MYSPACE INC., AMAZON.COM INC., PAYPAL INC., MATCH.COM, INC., AOL INC., AND CME GROUP INC., Defendants. CASE NO. 6:09-cv-269-LED Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED TEN MOTIONS IN LIMINE [DKT. #589] Plaintiff Bedrock opposes Defendants' Motion for Leave to Exceed Ten Motions in Limine [Dkt. #589] and would show the Court the following: The parties traded drafts of their proposed motions in limine on March 8, 2011. Defendants proposed 16 motions in limine, and Bedrock proposed 28 motions in limine. Thereafter, the parties engaged in telephonic meet and confers during which the parties reached agreement on a number of their proposals. On March 15, 2011, Bedrock filed nine motions in limine, and Defendants filed sixteen motions in limine. Bedrock argued its motions in limine within Local Rule 7's 15-page requirement. Defendants' Motion exceeded Local Rule 7's 15-page limit by almost three times--Defendants' Motion is 44 pages long.1 Defendants seek to litigate the case and eliminate evidence on motions in limine. A review of Defendants' Motions in Limine show that Defendants not only disregarded the Court's ten-motion limit; the Defendants also ignored the Court's admonition that motions in limine are appropriate only for those things that will create the proverbial "skunk in the jury box" if mentioned in front of the jury before an evidentiary ruling can be made. See Docket No. 339. Because the Defendants used their motions in limine inappropriately and exceeded the number allotted by the Court, Bedrock opposes Defendants' Motion For Leave to Exceed Ten Motions in Limine. 1 At approximately 9:00 p.m. on March 16, 2011, Defendants filed amended motions in limine, decreasing the page count to 17, which number is still violative of the Court's Local Rule 7. Dallas 320232v1 2 Dated: March 16, 2011. Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. _/s/ Douglas A. Cawley ________ Douglas A. Cawley, Lead Attorney Texas Bar No. 04035500 Theodore Stevenson, III Texas Bar No. 19196650 Rosemary T. Snider Texas Bar No. 18796500 Scott W. Hejny Texas State Bar No. 24038952 Jason D. Cassady Texas Bar No. 24045625 J. Austin Curry Texas Bar No. 24059636 Phillip M. Aurentz Texas State Bar No. 24059404 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-978-4000 Facsimile: 214-978-4044 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 Dallas 320232v1 3 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that, on March 16, 2010, the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this notice was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). /s/ Jason D. Cassady Jason D. Cassady ______ Dallas 320232v1 4

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?