`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`THE NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-1345-CJB
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`TVISION INSIGHTS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`TVISION INSIGHTS, INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND ITS AMENDED
`ANSWER TO PLEAD A COUNTERCLAIM
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), TVision Insights, Inc. (“TVision”)
`
`hereby moves for leave to amend its Amended Answer (Dkt. 21) to assert a counterclaim for
`
`violation of the antitrust laws, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. Pursuant to Local Rule
`
`15.1, a signed copy of the proposed Amended Answer & Counterclaim is attached as Exhibit 1,
`
`and a redlined copy of the amended pleading showing the changes to the Amended Answer is
`
`attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`In short, no substantive changes have been made to the Amended Answer (Dkt. 21), except
`
`for the addition of the counterclaim.
`
`Counsel for Nielsen has advised that Nielsen does not oppose this motion. The parties
`
`have stipulated, subject to approval by this Court, that Nielsen shall have an additional two weeks
`
`to answer or otherwise plead to the counterclaim.
`
`The grounds for this motion are as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On October 12, 2022, The Nielsen Company (US), LLC (“Nielsen”) filed a
`
`complaint.
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01345-CJB Document 67 Filed 10/13/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 853
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`On December 19, 2022, TVision filed its answer to Nielsen’s complaint.
`
`On or about February 8, 2023, TVision filed its amended answer to Nielsen’s
`
`complaint. (Dkt. 21.)
`
`4.
`
`Under the scheduling order in this case, the deadline for filing motions to amend
`
`pleadings is October 13, 2023.
`
`5.
`
`On Monday, October 9, 2023, counsel for TVision sent an email to counsel for
`
`Nielsen, attaching a proposed counterclaim under the antitrust laws, requesting that counsel for
`
`Nielsen advise if Nielsen would oppose TVision’s motion to file the counterclaim in this case. On
`
`October 12, 2023, counsel for Nielsen advised that Nielsen would not oppose TVision’s motion to
`
`file its counterclaim, if TVision would agree that Nielsen could have a two-week extension of time
`
`to answer or otherwise plead. TVision agreed to the proposed extension.
`
`WHEREFORE, TVision respectfully requests the Court to enter the attached order and to
`
`deem TVision’s counterclaim filed as of the date the order is entered.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Jason Xu
`RIMÔN LAW P.C.
`1990 K. Street, NW, Suite 420
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 470-2141
`
`Eric C. Cohen
`RIMÔN LAW P.C.
`P.O. Box B113
`150 Fayetteville St, Suite 2800
`Raleigh, NC 27601-2960
`(984) 960-2860
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Andrew E. Russell
`John W. Shaw (No. 3362)
`Andrew E. Russell (No. 5382)
`Nathan R. Hoeschen (No. 6232)
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`I.M. Pei Building
`1105 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 298-0700
`jshaw@shawkeller.com
`arussell@shawkeller.com
`nhoeschen@shawkeller.com
`Attorneys for Defendant
`TVision Insights, Inc.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01345-CJB Document 67 Filed 10/13/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 854
`
`
`Michael F. Heafey
`RIMÔN LAW P.C.
`800 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 250
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 461-4433
`
`Dated: October 13, 2023
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
