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]

Download PDF
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: 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 (202) 663-6800 seth. 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 (202) 663-6000 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?