Viacom International, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc.
OPPOSITION TO MOTION to file oversized brief , on behalf of Appellee Google, Inc., Youtube, Inc. and Youtube, LLC, FILED. Service date 04/15/2011 by CM/ECF.  [10-3270]
Nos. 10-3270 & 10-3342 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, YOUTUBE, INC., et. al., Defendants-Appellees. THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER LEAGUE LTD., et al. v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, YOUTUBE, INC., et. al., Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) VIACOM INT’L INC., et al. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 1:07-CV-2103 The Honorable Louis L. Stanton, United States District Judge No. 1:07-CV-03582 The Honorable Louis L. Stanton, United States District Judge. APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO FILE OVERSIZED REPLY BRIEFS Appellees YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, and Google, Inc. (“YouTube”) oppose appellants’ motion to file oversized reply briefs. 1 Appellants’ opening briefs total approximately 28,000 words. YouTube’s combined answering brief was approximately 21,000 words. Now appellants now seek 18,000 words for their collective replies. If appellants’ request is granted, the total word use for this appeal will be: Appellants: YouTube: 46,000 words 21,000 words There is no justification for that disparity. Appellants point to the fact that YouTube chose to file one answering brief rather than two separate briefs. But, by doing so, YouTube used far fewer than the 28,000 words that the rules otherwise made available. That is hardly reason for giving appellants 4,000 more words than the rules allow. Appellants’ invocation of the 13 amicus briefs filed in support of YouTube’s position in this appeal does not change that. A total of 14 amicus briefs were filed on appellants’ side, yet YouTube stayed well under the word limit provided by the rules. And appellants have already used the filing of amicus briefs as a basis for obtaining permission to take twice the normal time to prepare their reply briefs. No further concession on that ground is necessary or appropriate. 2 This Court “disfavors motions to file a brief exceeding the length permitted by FRAP 32(a)(7).” Local R. 27.1(e)(1). Appellants’ motions should be denied. Respectfully submitted, April 15, 2011 David H. Kramer Bart E. Volkmer WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 (650) 493-9300 s/ Andrew H. Schapiro Andrew H. Schapiro A. John P. Mancini Brian M. Willen MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 (212) 506-2500 Attorneys for YouTube, Inc. 3