Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation et al

Northern District of Illinois, ilnd-1:2016-cv-05486

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 10/6/2016: The Court directs Viamedia to file a surreply on or before 10/17/16. No further briefing unless ordered by the Court. [For further details, see Order.] Mailed notice

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Case: 1:16-cv-05486 Document #: 31 Filed: 10/06/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:168 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION VIAMEDIA, INC.,)) Plaintiff,) Case No. 16-cv-5486) v.) Hon. Amy J. St. Eve) COMCAST CORPORATION and) COMCAST SPOTLIGHT, LP,)) Defendants.) ORDER The Court directs Viamedia to file a surreply to allay any concerns that it would suffer prejudice based on Defendants' failure to address its tying and exclusive dealing claims in Defendants' opening brief. (See R. 28 at 9; R. 29 at 9–10 n.8.) Viamedia must address only Defendants' arguments raised for the first time in their reply brief. In particular, Viamedia should address Defendants' arguments that Viamedia's claims amount to a "monopoly leveraging" claim that must fail because "a monopolist can take its monopoly profit just once." See Schor v. Abbott Labs., 457 F.3d 608, 611 (7th Cir. 2006); VBR Tours, LLC v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 14-cv-00804, 2015 WL 5693735, at *10 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (discussing Schor); see also Sheridan v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 530 F.3d 590, 592–93 (7th Cir. 2008) (explaining that if a company obtains a monopoly in two complementary product markets, "raising the price of a product reduces the demand for its complements"); Scheiber v. Dolby Labs., 293 F.3d 1014, 1020 (7th Cir. 2002) ("[T]he idea that you can use tying to lever your way to a second. . . monopoly is economic nonsense."). Viamedia should file its surreply on or before October 17, 2016. No further briefing unless ordered by the Court. DATED: October 6, 2016 ENTERED ______________________________ AMY J. ST. EVE United States District Court Judge