The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation

S.D. New York

The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 7, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-11195·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE: | 25-md-3143 (SHS) (OTW) OPENAI, INC,, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION | ORDER This Document Relates To: 23-cv-11195 SIDNEY H. STEIN, U.S. District Judge. The Court has received by mail a request from non-party John P. Springett II for leave to file an amicus brief “in support of neither party” regarding Magistrate Judge Ona Wang’s May 13, 2025 preservation order. “An amicus brief should normally be allowed when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all, when the amicus has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision in the present case ..., or when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that lawyers for the parties are able to provide. Otherwise, leave to file an amicus curiae brief should be denied.” In re Terrorist Attacks on Sep. 11, 2001, No. 03-md-1570, 2022 WL 17326181, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2022) (quoting Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997)). None of the circumstances supporting leave to file an amicus brief is present here. The request for leave to file an amicus brief is denied.

Dated: New York, New York August 7, 2025 SO ORDERED:

Sidney H. Stein, U.S.D,J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE: | 25-md-3143 (SHS) (OTW) OPENAI, INC,, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION | ORDER This Document Relates To: 23-cv-11195 SIDNEY H. STEIN, U.S. District Judge. The Court has received by mail a request from non-party John P. Springett II for leave to file an amicus brief “in support of neither party” regarding Magistrate Judge Ona Wang’s May 13, 2025 preservation order. “An amicus brief should normally be allowed when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all, when the amicus has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision in the present case ..., or when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that lawyers for the parties are able to provide. Otherwise, leave to file an amicus curiae brief should be denied.” In re Terrorist Attacks on Sep. 11, 2001, No. 03-md-1570, 2022 WL 17326181, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2022) (quoting Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997)). None of the circumstances supporting leave to file an amicus brief is present here. The request for leave to file an amicus brief is denied.

Dated: New York, New York August 7, 2025 SO ORDERED:

Sidney H. Stein, U.S.D,J.

The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation (The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related