Case 12-4547, Document 10, 11/27/2012, 778368, Page1 of 2 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S.

The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court's Local Rules for the following reason(s): ______ Failure to submit acknowledgment and notice of appearance (Local Rule 12.3) ______ Failure to file the Record on Appeal (FRAP 10, FRAP 11) ______ Missing motion information statement (T-1080 - Local Rule 27.1) ______ Missing supporting papers for motion (e.g, affidavit/affirmation/declaration) (FRAP 27) ______ Insufficient number of copies (Local Rules: 21.1, 27.1, 30.1, 31.1) ______ Improper proof of service (FRAP 25) ______ Missing proof of service ______ Served to an incorrect address ______ Incomplete service (Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967)) ______ Failure to submit document in digital format (Local Rule 25.1) ___x__ Not Text-Searchable (Local Rule 25.1, Interim Local Rules 25.2), click here for instructions on how to make PDFs text searchable ______ Failure to file appendix on CD-ROM (Local Rule 25.1, Interim Local Rules 25.2) ______ Failure to file special appendix (Local Rule 32.1) ______ Defective cover (FRAP 32) ______ Incorrect caption (FRAP 32) ______ Wrong color cover (FRAP 32) ______ Docket number font too small (Local Rule 32.1) ______ Incorrect pagination, click here for instructions on how to paginate PDFs (Local Rule 32.1) ______ Incorrect font (FRAP 32) ______ Oversized filing (FRAP 27 (motion), FRAP 32 (brief)) ______ Missing Amicus Curiae filing or motion (Local Rule 29.1) ______ Untimely filing ______ Incorrect Filing Event ______ Other: ___________________________________________________

The resubmitted documents, if compliant with FRAP and the Local Rules, will be deemed timely filed.

Failure to cure the defect(s) by the date set forth above will result in the document being stricken.

An appellant's failure to cure a defective filing may result in the dismissal of the appeal.

THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., et Southern District of New York al.

Edward H. Rosenthal, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, P.C. El ~ Check the applicable provision:

I am not ordering a transcript WHICH A TRANSCRIPT IS REQUIRED (i.e., oral argument, order from the bench, etc.) Transcript of oral arguments on motions for judgment on the pleadings (5/17/12) and for summary judgment (8/6/12) Reason for not ordering a transcript: E~i Copy is already available El No transcribed proceedings El Other (Specify in the space below): METHOD OF PAYMENT LiFunds CJA Voucher (CJA 21)

I certify that I have made satisfactory arrangements with the court reporter for payment of the cost of the transcript.

I understand that unless I have already ordered the transcript, I shall order its preparation at the time required by FRAP and the Local Rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------)( Whereas before the Court are two motions for judgment on the pleadings and three motions for summary judgment; also before the Court are two unopposed motions for leave to file briefs as amici, and the matter having come before the Honorable Harold Baer, Jr., United States District Judge, and the Court, on October 10, 2012, having rendered its Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' motions, granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings: the Associational Plaintiffs have Article III standing; the U.S. Associational Plaintiffs lack statutory standing; and Plaintiffs' OWP claims are not ripe, granting Defendants' and Defendant Intervenors' motions for summary judgment: their participation in the MDP and the present application of the HDL are protected under fair use, and granting the two unopposed motions for leave to file briefs as amici, it is, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 10, 2012, Plaintiffs' motions are denied; Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part and denied in part: the Associational Plaintiffs have Article III standing; the U.S. Associational Plaintiffs lack statutory standing; and Plaintiffs' OWP claims are not ripe; Defendants' and Defendant Intervenors' motions for summary judgment are granted: their participation in the MDP and the present application of the HDL are

Case 12-4547, Document 3, 11/14/2012, 772474, Page2 of 2 protected under fair use; and the two unopposed motions for leave to file briefs as amici are granted; accordingly, the case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York October 12,2012

Clerk of Court Deputy Clerk THIS D0CUME1-.j 1 WAS ENTERED

They do not, however, address the crux of Defendants’ argument, which is that the Copyright Act simply does not include Case 12-4547, Document 2, 11/14/2012, 772470, Page5 of 23 this type of standing.7 I hold that the Associational Plaintiffs have satisfied Article III standing requirements and that the issues pertaining to the rights of their members are therefore justiciable.

8 Compare Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) “evinces a congressional intention to define standing to bring a private action ... as broadly as is permitted by Article III” (citation omitted)), with Small v. Gen.

Even if it were not, “[m]aking a copy of a copyrighted work for the convenience of a blind person is expressly identified by the House Committee Report as an example of a fair use, with no suggestion that anything more than a purpose to entertain or to inform need motivate the copying.” Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc, 464 U.S. 417, 455 n.40 (1984).

Under the Chafee Amendment to the Copyright Act, “authorized entit(ies)” are permitted “to reproduce or distribute copies ... of a previously published, non-dramatic literary work ... in specialized formats exclusively for use by the blind or other persons with disabilities.” 17 U.S.C. § 121.

access to previously published non-dramatic literary works within the HDL fits squarely within the access to previously published non-dramatic literary works within the HDL fits squarely within the Chafee Amendment, although Defendants may certainly rely on fair use, as explained above, to Chafee Amendment, although Defendants may certainly rely on fair use, as explained above, to justify copies made outside of these categories or in the event that they are not authorized entities.33 justify copies made outside of these categories or in the event that they are not authorized entities.33

They do not, however, address the crux of Defendants’ argument, which is that the Copyright Act simply does not include this type of standing.7 I hold that the Associational Plaintiffs have satisfied Article III standing requirements and that the issues pertaining to the rights of their members are therefore justiciable.

8 Compare Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) “evinces a congressional intention to define standing to bring a private action ... as broadly as is permitted by Article III” (citation omitted)), with Small v. Gen.

Even if it were not, “[m]aking a copy of a copyrighted work for the convenience of a blind person is expressly identified by the House Committee Report as an example of a fair use, with no suggestion that anything more than a purpose to entertain or to inform need motivate the copying.” Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc, 464 U.S. 417, 455 n.40 (1984).

Under the Chafee Amendment to the Copyright Act, “authorized entit(ies)” are permitted “to reproduce or distribute copies ... of a previously published, non-dramatic literary work ... in specialized formats exclusively for use by the blind or other persons with disabilities.” 17 U.S.C. § 121.

The provision of access to previously published non-dramatic literary works within the HDL fits squarely within the Chafee Amendment, although Defendants may certainly rely on fair use, as explained above, to justify copies made outside of these categories or in the event that they are not authorized entities.33

Nonetheless, Bancorp sought to vacate the judgment of the circuit court.

MPJ maintains that it does not need to make a showing of exceptional circumstances but argues that exceptional circumstances are nonetheless 11 Case 1:10-cv-21812-PCH Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2011 Page 12 ...

Nonetheless, the discovery Order may have persuasive value to future litigants and courts addressing similar discovery disputes.

Nonetheless, the burden is squarely on MPJ to establish the confidentiality of the discovery it seeks to protect.

Nonetheless, the plaintiffs do not seriously contest this prong and the Court finds that MPJ has met its burden of showing that the information sought by the plaintiffs is confidential.

Nonetheless, the Court will address the remaining factors of necessity and relevance.