Viacom International, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc.

Filing 362

MOTION, to file oversized brief, on behalf of Appellant Viacom International, Inc., FILED. Service date 04/14/2011 by CM/ECF. [263667] [10-3270]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500 MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT Docket Number(s): Motion for: 10-3270; 10-3342 Caption [use short title] Viacom Intl. Inc., et al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al., No. 10-3270; Football Ass'n Premier League Ltd., et al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al., No. 10-3342 Permission to file an oversized reply brief Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: Plaintiffs-Appellants in 10-3270 (Viacom International Inc., et al.) and in 10-3342 (The Football Ass'n Premier League Ltd., et al.) request authorization to each file a 9,000 word reply brief. MOVING PARTY: Viacom Intl. Inc. et al. 9 Plaintiff 9 Defendant  9 Appellant/Petitioner 9 Appellee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: Theodore B. Olson OPPOSING PARTY: OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Andrew H. Schapiro [name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail] Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 955-8500/tolson@gibsondunn.com Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: YouTube, Inc. et al. Mayer Brown LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 (212) 506-2500/aschapiro@mayerbrown.com United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Honorable Louis L. Stanton Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has request for relief been made below? 9 Yes 9 No Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? 9 Yes 9 No Requested return date and explanation of emergency: Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): 9 Yes 9 No (explain): Opposing counsel’s position on motion: 9 Unopposed 9 Opposed 9 Don’t Know Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: 9 Yes 9 No 9 Don’t Know Is oral argument on motion requested? 9 Yes 9 No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted) Has argument date of appeal been set? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, enter date:__________________________________________________________ Signature of Moving Attorney: /s/ Theodore B. Olson April 14, 2011 ___________________________________Date: ___________________ Has service been effected? 9 Yes 9 No [Attach proof of service] ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion is GRANTED DENIED. FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court Date: _____________________________________________ Form T-1080 By: ________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Docket 10-3270-cv v. YOUTUBE, INC., et al. Defendants-Appellees. THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMEIR LEAGUE LIMITED, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Docket 10-3342-cv v. YOUTUBE, INC., et al. Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO FILE OVERSIZED REPLY BRIEFS Charles S. Sims PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 969-3000 Theodore B. Olson Matthew D. McGill GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 955-8500 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants in No. 10-3342 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants in No. 10-3270 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Local Rules 27.1 and 31.2(c), Plaintiffs-Appellants in Case Number 10-3270, Viacom International Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment Television LLC, and Plaintiffs-Appellants in Case Number 10-3342, The Football Association Premier League Ltd. et al. (collectively, “Appellants”) respectfully request an enlargement of the page limits for their reply briefs to 9,000 words each. 1. Appellants each filed an opening brief within the usual 14,000 word limit on December 3, 2010. Because of the “core of overlapping issues” raised in the two briefs, Defendants-Appellees YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, and Google, Inc. (“Appellees”) elected to file a single response. 2. This Court had initially authorized Appellees to file a single brief of 18,000 words responding to the Appellants’ briefs in both of the above-captioned cases. YouTube requested a 3,000 word extension, contending that it needed more space to thoroughly address the arguments of all Appellants, which were “not entirely parallel.” On January 24, 2011, this Court granted Appellees’ motion for permission to file a single brief not to exceed 21,000 words. 3. On March 31, 2011, Appellees filed their brief, which contained 20,970 words. The vast majority of Appellees’ brief raises arguments that Appellees claim are fully applicable to all Appellants. As a result, each reply brief must address a substantially longer response than usual. 4. Because of the public importance of this case, thirteen amicus-curiae briefs with a combined length of over 75,000 words have also been filed in support of Appellees. The arguments raised in those briefs likewise require a response. 5. In light of the oversized brief filed by Appellees, and the number of amicus-curiae briefs, Appellants do not believe that they can fully respond to the arguments for affirmance in the usual 7,000 words. Modestly increasing the word limit to 9,000 words will benefit the Court by permitting a more thorough airing of the parties’ positions. 6. Appellants’ reply briefs are currently due April 28, 2011. Accordingly, this motion is filed at least 14 days prior to the date the brief is due, as required under Local Rule 27.1(e)(3). 7. Appellees have informed Appellants that they oppose Appellants’ request for an expansion of the word limit and intend to file a response. 2 DATED: April 14, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Theodore B. Olson Paul M. Smith William M. Hohengarten Scott B. Wilkens Matthew S. Hellman JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6000 Theodore B. Olson Matthew D. McGill GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 955-8500 Susan J. Kohlmann JENNER & BLOCK LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 891-1600 Stuart J. Baskin SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 848-4000 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants in No. 10-3270, Viacom International Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment Television LLC Max W. Berger John C. Browne BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 (212) 554-1400 Charles S. Sims William M. Hart Noah Siskind Gitterman Elizabeth A. Figueira PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 1585 Broadway New York, New York 10036 (212) 969-3000 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants in No. 10-3342, The Football Ass’n Premier League Ltd., et al. 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of April, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Joint Motion to File Oversized Reply Briefs was served on all counsel of record in this appeal via CM/ECF pursuant to Local Rule 25.1 (h)(1) & (2). /s/ Theodore B. Olson Theodore B. Olson David H. Kramer Michael H. Rubin Bart E. Volkmer WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 (650) 493-9300 Andrew H. Schapiro A. John P. Mancini Brian M. Willen MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, New York 10019 (212) 506-2500 Counsel for Appellees YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, Google, Inc. 4