The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation

S.D. New York

The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation

DecidedAugust 7, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-11195

StatusUnknown

This text of The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation (The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-new-york-times-company-v-microsoft-corporation-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack