The Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.

Filing 84

MOTION, to extend time, on behalf of Appellant Google, Inc., FILED. Service date 02/11/2013 by CM/ECF. [843900] [12-3200] [Entered: 02/11/2013 06:17 PM]

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:

12-3200

Caption [use short title]

Extension of time to file appellant's reply brief

The Authors Guild, et al. v. Google Inc.

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:

Defendant-appellant respectfully requests a 7-day
extension of time, to March 1, 2013, to file a reply brief.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant-Appellant Google Inc.
Plaintiff
Defendant
Appellant/Petitioner
Appellee/Respondent

0
0

OPPOSING PARTY:

0
0

MOVING ATTORNEY:

OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Michael J. Boni
[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

_s_et_h_P_.
w_a_xm_a_n_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Court-Judge/Agency appealed from:

---------------------

""B"'=o~n:,:.-i..:::&::..Z=ac"7k"'-L~L=C=-:-=--::---=-----=--=-:--c:-::-:::-:::-:------

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20006
[phone]
seth. [e-mail]

15 St. Asaphs Road, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
_,_,(6"':"'1-"'-0)"-:'8":':'2'7'2-_,0"'7-20"'-'0'-:-------------..!.m!.!.b~o~n'-"i!.l.'@=b-""o!.!.n"-"iz""a""c""k.!!.c"-"o'"'m'-!._______________

The Hon. Denny Chin, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (by designation)

Please check appropriate boxes:

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has request for relief been made below?
DYes 0No
Has this relief been previously sought in this Court?
DYes 0 No
Requested return date and explanation of emergency:_ _ _ _ _ _ __

Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):
Yes
No (explain): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

EJ

Betty Miles, Joseph Goulden, Jim Boutor

D

Opposing counsel's position on motion:
Unopposed Dopposed 0Don't Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
DYes
No 0Don't Know

m

fZI

Is oral argument on motion requested?

DYes

Has argument date of appeal been set?

DYes

s••••"·~~~

Date:

E) No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

EJ

No If yes, enter date: _________________________________

~ l '' \ \ 3

Has service been effected?

E]Yes

D No [Attachproofofservice]

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:

No. 12-3200
IN THE UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
___________________
THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________
On Appeal from an Order Granting Certification of a Class Action, Entered on
May 31, 2012, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, No. 1:05-cv-08136 Before the Honorable Denny Chin
___________________
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
Seth P. Waxman hereby affirms as follows:
1.

I am a partner in the firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

LLP. I submit this Affirmation in support of the motion of Defendant-Appellant
Google Inc. (“Google”) for a 7-day extension of time, to March 1, 2013, to file a
reply brief in the above-captioned matter.
2.

In this matter, Google is appealing from the May 31, 2012 decision of

the district court granting Plaintiffs-Appellees’ motion for class certification. On
June 14, 2012 Google petitioned for permission to appeal the district court’s

certification decision. This Court granted Google’s petition on August 14, 2012,
and stayed proceedings in the district court pending the outcome of this appeal on
September 17, 2012. Google filed its brief on November 9, 2012. PlaintiffsAppellees filed their brief on February 8, 2013. If no extension is granted,
Google’s reply brief would be due to be filed by February 22, 2013.
3.

Google has not previously requested an extension of time to file a

reply brief.
4.

Plaintiffs-Appellees do not oppose the requested extension of time.

5.

Google respectfully submits that good cause exists for the modest

extension of time requested for the following reasons:
a.

Currently, undersigned counsel of record is preparing for oral

argument before the Supreme Court of the United States in Bowman v. Monsanto
Co., No. 11-796 on February 19, 2013, and is preparing a reply brief to be filed by
Petitioner in the Supreme Court in Trevino v. Thaler, No. 11-10189 on February
13, 2013.
b.

Two sets of parties have indicated they plan to file amicus

briefs in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. Those briefs are due to be filed February
15, 2013, giving Google only one week to respond in its reply brief to arguments
raised by amici.

I declare that the foregoing is true and correct, in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1746.

Dated: February 11, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
/S/
Seth P. Waxman
Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
[phone]
[e-mail]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the
appellate CM/ECF system on February 11, 2013. All participants in the case are
registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system.

/s/ Seth P. Waxman
SETH P. WAXMAN