The Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.
MOTION, to extend time, on behalf of Appellant Jim Bouton, Joseph Goulden, Betty Miles and The Authors Guild, FILED. Service date 07/08/2014 by CM/ECF.  [13-4829]
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
Caption Fuse short titlel
Extension of Time to File Reply Brief
The Authors GuHd, et al. v. Google, Inc.
Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:
Motion for extension of time to file Appellants’
Reply Brief. The current deadline to file the
Reply is July 17, 2014. Appellants request a
The Authors Guild, et al.
Edward H. Rosenthal, Esq.
Daralyn J. Dune, Esq.
[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & SeIz, P.C.
Dune Tangri LLP
488 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111
erosenthaI@fkks.com; 212. 980.0120
Court-Judge/Agency appealed from:
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin (sitting by designation)
Please check appropriate boxes:
Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):
FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has request for relief been made below?
Has this relief been previously sought in this Court?
Requested return date and explanation of emergency:_______________________
Opposin counsel’s position on motion:
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
LI Yes No LIDon’t Know
Is oral argument on motion requested?
Has argument date of appeal been set?
Signature of Moving Attorney:
Is! Edward H. Rosenthal
Form T-1080 (rev. 12-13)
LI Yes RI No
LI Yes I1No
Date: July 8, 2014
(requestr for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)
If yes, enter date:________________________________________________
Service by: RICMJECF
LI Other [Attach proof of service]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
THE AUTHORS GUILD, et a).,
Docket Number: 13-4829
DECLARATION OF EDWARD H. ROSENTHAL IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF
I, Edward H. Rosenthal, hereby declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1746, that the following is true and correct:
I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of New York and before this
Court. I am a member of the law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, P.C., counsel for
This declaration is based on personal knowledge and submitted in support of
Appellants’ motion for an extension of time to file their Reply Brief in this action.
Appellants request an extension of seven (7) days to file their Reply Brief
currently due July 17, 2014, up to and including July 24, 2014.
Appellants request the additional time for several reasons. First, this appeal raises
significant issues of copyright law, including those addressed by this Court’s recent decision in
Authors Guild Inc. v. Hathi Trust, No. 12-4547, 2014 WL 2576342 (2d Cir. 2014), which was
decided on June 10, 2014, after Appellants’ Opening Brief was filed, and which is extensively
discussed in Appellee’s Opposition Brief. Second, it is anticipated that that there will be a
significant number of amicus curiae briefs filed in support of Appellee’s position prior to the
July 10, 2014 deadline for such briefs. To date, Appellants have consented to the filing of four
amicus briefs but we expect that there will be several more. In the Hat/il Trust case mentioned
above, there were eleven (II) amicus briefs filed in support of the Appellees’ position. Finally,
the Appellee’s Opposition Brief was filed and served in the late afternoon on July 3, 2014,
shortly before the start of the Fourth of July holiday weekend.
This is the first request for an extension of time made by Appellants. Counsel for
Appellee has consented to the relief sought in this motion.
Dated: New York, New York
July 8, 2014
Edward H. Rosenthal
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?