US 7396254

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NCS MULTISTAGE INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NINE ENERGY SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00277-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

NINE ENERGY SERVICE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO NCS MULTISTAGE INC.’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE NINE’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

Nine Energy Service, Inc. (“Nine”) respectfully submits this Opposition to Plaintiff NCS 

Multistage Inc.’s (“NCS’s”) Motion to Strike Nine’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, (Dkt. 33), 

(the “Motion”) and requests that the Court deny the Motion. 

Nine respectfully submits that it is appropriate for the parties to submit Notices of 

Supplemental Authority that may affect the outcome of motions pending before the Court, 

including persuasive appellate law on similar facts as presented in Nine’s Motion to Transfer 

Venue (Dkt. 24). See Mendoza v. Microsoft, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 3d 533, 541 (W.D. Tex. 2014) 

(quoting Sisk v. Abbott Labs., No. 1:11 CV 159, 2012 WL 1164559, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 

2012)) (“[A] notice of supplemental authority [is] commonly used in the federal court system to 

alert the Court to a decision of another court issued after the close of the briefing period . . . . To 

suggest that a party may not file such a notice and inform the Court of subsequent authority is 

nonsensical.”). Nine merely filed the Notice for the convenience of the Court. 

Furthermore, NCS has failed to provide any rule or authority to support its motion and its 

attendant burden of showing that they are entitled to relief. As with NCS’s last motion to strike, 

(Dkt. 31), Nine specifically asked during the parties’ meet-and-confer discussion for NCS to 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 35 Filed 09/29/20 Page 1 of 3
2 

US 7396254

identify any authority that suggested that Nine should withdraw its Notice. NCS provided none. 

Nine even offered that it would not object to NCS submitting a responsive notice if NCS believed 

that Nine had mischaracterized any aspect of In re HP. NCS declined and instead has chosen to 

waste this Court’s time by presenting another baseless motion to strike. 

Nine refrains from responding to NCS’s substantive arguments regarding In re HP to avoid 

needless additional briefing that would otherwise burden the Court. For the foregoing reasons, 

Nine respectfully requests the Court deny the Motion. 

Dated: September 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

VINSON & ELKINS LLP 

By: /s/ Hilary L. Preston

Hilary L. Preston 

Texas Bar No. 24062946 

hpreston@velaw.com 

VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. 

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 

Austin, TX 78746 

Telephone: +1.512.542.8400 

Fax: +1.512.542.8612 

Parker D. Hancock 

Texas Bar No. 24108256 

phancock@velaw.com 

Sean P. Belding 

Texas Bar No. 24109634 

sbelding@velaw.com 

VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. 

1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500 

Houston, TX 77002-6760 

Telephone: +1.713.758.2222 

Fax: +1.713.758.2346 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 35 Filed 09/29/20 Page 2 of 3
3 

US 7396254

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 29th day of September, 2020, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document was served on all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local 

Rule CV-5(b)(1). 

/s/ Hilary L. Preston 

Hilary L. Preston 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 35 Filed 09/29/20 Page 3 of 3