Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al
Filing
715
Unopposed MOTION to Expedite EOLAS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF SOURCE CODE FROM EBAY INC. AND AMAZON.COM, INC. by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
Eolas Technologies Incorporated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Adobe Systems Inc., Amazon.com, Inc.,
Apple Inc., Argosy Publishing, Inc.,
Blockbuster Inc., CDW Corp.,
Citigroup Inc., eBay Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc.,
The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Google Inc.,
J.C. Penney Company, Inc., JPMorgan
Chase & Co., New Frontier Media, Inc.,
Office Depot, Inc., Perot Systems Corp.,
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.,
Rent-A-Center, Inc., Staples, Inc., Sun
Microsystems Inc., Texas Instruments Inc.,
Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC
Defendants.
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-00446-LED
§
§
§
§
JURY TRIAL
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
EOLAS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING
ON EOLAS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF SOURCE CODE
FROM EBAY INC. AND AMAZON.COM, INC.
On June 20, 2011, Plaintiff Eolas Technologies Incorporated (“Eolas”) filed its Motion to
Compel Discovery from eBay and Amazon regarding the production of source code for their
accused websites. As mentioned in the motion, eBay and Amazon are represented by common
counsel.
Given the importance of the production of source code to the upcoming expert report
deadline, and because the Court is already scheduled to hear oral argument on Eolas’ Motion to
Motion to Compel Designation of 30(b)(6) Witnesses from Amazon (Dkt. 667) on June 29, 2011
(see Order at dkt. 694), Eolas requests that the Court issue an expedited briefing schedule on this
motion and address the motion on an expedited basis so that the matter may be heard at the June
Austin 68121v1
29, 2011 hearing.1
Eolas requests that the Court set an expedited briefing schedule.
Defendant’s opposition brief due:
Friday, June 24, 2011.
Eolas’ reply brief due:
Monday, June 27, 2011.
WHEREFORE, Eolas therefore requests the Court grant the expedited briefing schedule
as outlined above and in the attached Order.
DATED: June 20, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
McKOOL SMITH P.C.
By:
1
/s/ Mike McKool
Counsel for eBay and Amazon indicated that they are not opposed to expedited briefing and
agree to having this issue addressed at the hearing on June 29, 2011.
Austin 68121v1
Mike McKool
Lead Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 13732100
mmckool@mckoolsmith.com
Douglas Cawley
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
dcawley@mckoolsmith.com
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
Kevin L. Burgess
Texas State Bar No. 24006927
kburgess@mckoolsmith.com
John B. Campbell
Texas State Bar No. 24036314
jcampbell@mckoolsmith.com
Josh W. Budwin
Texas State Bar No. 24050347
jbudwin@mckoolsmith.com
Gretchen K. Harting
Texas State Bar No. 24055979
gharting@mckoolsmith.com
Matthew B. Rappaport
Texas State Bar No. 24070472
mrappaport@mckoolsmith.com
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 692-8700
Telecopier: (512) 692-8744
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INC.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counsel for Plaintiff conferred with Counsel for Defendants regarding the relief
requested in this motion on June 17, 2011. Counsel for Defendant stated that Defendant does not
oppose an expedited briefing schedule and does not oppose having this motion addressed at the
June 29 hearing.
/s/ Josh W. Budwin____
Austin 68121v1
Josh W. Budwin
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who
have consented to electronic services on June 20, 2011. Local Rule CV-5(a))3)(A).
/s/ Josh W. Budwin____
Josh W. Budwin
Austin 68121v1
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?