Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Combined Public Communications, Inc., No. 3:2012cv00191 - Document 84 (W.D. Ky. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 12/20/2012; action is reassigned and transferred to the docket of Judge Charles R. Simpson, III and consolidated with T-Netix, Inc. v. Combined Public Communications, Inc., 3:09-cv-00743-S. cc:counsel (TLB)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00191-JGH SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. COMBINED PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Upon its own motion, the Court considers whether this action should be transferred to the docket of Judge Charles R. Simpson, III and consolidated with another action in this Court, T-Netix, Inc. v. Combined Public Communications, Inc., 3:09-cv-00743-S. For reasons explained herein, namely judicial efficiency, the Court consolidates and transfers this case. Securus Technologies, Inc. ( Securus ) brings this patent infringement case against competitor Combined Public Communications, Inc. ( CPC ) over the 167 Patent that CPC incorporated into the telecommunications technology systems it provides to jails. The 167 Patent is just one of several patents incorporated into the telecommunications systems. T-Netix, Inc., Securus s sister company insofar as both companies are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Securus Technologies Holdings, Inc., also filed suit against CPC in 2009 over four other patents incorporated in or related to the same telecommunications systems in the Western District of Kentucky ( T-Netix Litigation ). The Court currently weighs on whether the instant action should be transferred and consolidated with the T-Netix Litigation. 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer any civil action [f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice . Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, a court may consolidate two cases when common issues of fact or law are at issue. The action in this Court was originally filed in the Southern District of Indiana on October 31, 2011. Upon CPC s Motion to Transfer Venue before that Court, District Judge Jane MagnusStinson granted the motion [g]iven the desirability of having one judge preside over this action, [and] the possibility that this action could be resolved sooner in the Western District of Kentucky. Transfer Order, Securus Techs., Inc. v. Combined Pub. Commc ns, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-1447-JMSTAB (S.D. Ind. Apr. 11, 2012), ECF No. 52. Judge Magnus-Stinson intended the transfer from the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to result in the placement of this action in Judge Simpson s docket, where the T-Netix Litigation is currently ongoing. This Court agrees with Judge Magnus-Stinson that the transfer to Judge Simpson s docket will promote interests of convenience for parties and witnesses, and together with consolidation, will enhance the ease and efficiency of proceeding with this litigation. Transfer and consolidation will also likely increase the speed to trial, a benefit to the parties and the Court alike. Because Judge Simpson has presided over the companion case for just over three years now, his chambers possesses more familiarity with the parties and the issues at bar. Moreover, [i]t is the general practice in the Western District of Kentucky to transfer a junior action to the docket of the senior action. River Fields, Inc. v. Whitehead, 2009 WL 1587332, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 5, 2009). This Court will follow that practice. 2 Being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant action, 3:12-cv-00191-H, is reassigned and transferred to the docket of Judge Charles R. Simpson, III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant action, 3:12-cv-00191-H, is consolidated with T-Netix, Inc. v. Combined Public Communications, Inc., 3:09-cv-00743-S. December 20, 2012 cc: Counsel of Record 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.