segOne, Inc. v. Fox Broadcasting Company

Filing 19

Case 3:07-cv-00342-JRS

Document 19

Filed 08/18/2007

Page 1 of 3

JAMES GIBSON PLLC
University of Virginia School of Law, 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1738 (434) 924 - 4654 _______________________________
August 17, 2007 Hon. James R. Spencer, Chief Judge United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia Lewis F. Powell, Jr. U.S. Courthouse 1000 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Re: segOne Inc. v. Fox Broadcasting Company, Civil Action No. 3:07cv342-JRS Late Filing of Reply Brief by Defendant Fox Broadcasting Company Dear Chief Judge Spencer: I am counsel for Plaintiff segOne, Inc. in the above-referenced action. I write in response to the filing today by Defendant Fox Broadcasting Company of its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss segOne's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fox filed its reply brief two days after the time allowed under the Eastern District's local rules, and it also failed to file (as required by those rules) a motion requesting that this Court grant additional time. Please note that on Wednesday, August 8, counsel for Fox contacted my co-counsel, Christopher Sprigman, to request segOne's support for a motion by Fox requesting additional time to file its reply brief. Mr. Sprigman stated that segOne would neither support nor oppose such a request, and that Fox could say as much in any motion that it filed requesting extra time. 1 Therefore, because segOne has already told Fox's counsel that it would not oppose extra time for the filing of the reply brief, segOne takes no position whether this Court should strike the brief on account of its late filing. I should also mention that Fox's late-filed brief makes much of Judge Batts's ruling on the
Note also that Fox sought, and was granted (again, with no objection from segOne), extra time to file its initial motion and accompanying memorandum.
1

Case 3:07-cv-00342-JRS

Document 19

Filed 08/18/2007

Page 2 of 3

JAMES GIBSON PLLC
_______________________________
Hon. James R. Spencer, Chief Judge Page 2 of 2 Copyright Act's "homestyle exemption"--a matter that Fox did not address its initial memorandum's Argument. While that exemption was raised by Fox and its co-plaintiffs in the litigation against Flying J, it is entirely irrelevant to segOne's arguments in the present suit before this Court. segOne will not raise the issue of the homestyle exemption in this declaratory action and will not seek any ruling from this Court on its applicability to any use of the segOne device. Fox's assertions in its rebuttal memorandum that segOne is asking this Court to disagree with the New York court's conclusions on the scope of the homestyle exemption are simply incorrect. Respectfully, /s/ James Gibson Virginia Bar No. 41469 Attorney for segOne, Inc. JAMES GIBSON PLLC University of Virginia School of Law 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1789 [phone] phone [phone] fax [e-mail] cc: Christopher Sprigman

Case 3:07-cv-00342-JRS

Document 19

Filed 08/18/2007

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 18th day of August, 2007, I will electronically file the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the following: Robert M. Tyler, Esq. McGuire Woods LLP One James Center 901 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 [e-mail] Paul B. Gaffney, Esq. Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street NW Washington, DC 20005 [e-mail]

/s/ James Gibson Virginia Bar No. 41469 Attorney for segOne, Inc. JAMES GIBSON PLLC University of Virginia School of Law 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1789 [phone] phone [phone] fax [e-mail]