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: [phone]
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
[phone]/[e-mail]
Court-Judge/Agency appealed from:

YouTube, Inc. et al.

Mayer Brown LLP
1675 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
[phone]/[e-mail]

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
[phone]

Theodore B. Olson
Matthew D. McGill
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]

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
[phone]

Theodore B. Olson
Matthew D. McGill
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]

Susan J. Kohlmann
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
[phone]

Stuart J. Baskin
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
[phone]

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
[phone]

Charles S. Sims
William M. Hart
Noah Siskind Gitterman
Elizabeth A. Figueira
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1585 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
[phone]

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
[phone]

Andrew H. Schapiro
A. John P. Mancini
Brian M. Willen
MAYER BROWN LLP
1675 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
[phone]

Counsel for Appellees YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, Google, Inc.

4