Viacom International, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc.

Filing 374

OPPOSITION TO MOTION to file oversized brief [362], on behalf of Appellee Google, Inc., Youtube, Inc. and Youtube, LLC, FILED. Service date 04/15/2011 by CM/ECF. [264648][374] [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
[phone]

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

Attorneys for YouTube, Inc.

3