Mechanical Licensing Collective v. Spotify USA Inc.

New Y DLA SIV te: + || ELECTRONICALLY FILED ww! DOC #: FIRM * nu DATE FILED: — 2/11/2025 Beijing WWIU Ltr Boston New York Brussels Orange County Century City Paris February 10, 2025 Chicago Riyadh Dubai San Diego Dusseldorf San Francisco Frankfurt Seoul Hamburg Silicon Valley Hong Kong Singapore VIA ECF Houston Tel Aviv — London Tokyo . Los Angel Washington, D.C. Hon. Analisa Torres “ United States District Judge Southern District of New York Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Mechanical Licensing Collective v. Spotifv USA Inc., No. 1:24-cv-3809-AT - Jomt Extension Request Dear Judge Torres, Pursuant to Rules I.B and I.C of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Plaintiff Mechanical Licensing Collective (“MLC”) and Defendant Spotify USA Inc. (“Spotify”) (collectively the “Parties’”) jointly request an extension of time to move for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The current deadline to move for fees and costs is February 12, 2025, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), (2)(B)(@), over two weeks before MLC’s deadline to file a notice of appeal on February 28, 2025, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); ECF Nos. 62, 62-1 at 1.

In the interest of judicial economy, the Parties request that the Court extend the deadline for the fees-and-costs motion to sixty days after MLC’s deadline to file a notice of appeal or, in the event that MLC files an appeal, sixty days after the Court of Appeals issues its mandate, whichever is later.

While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B) allots a prevailing party fourteen days to file a motion seeking attorney’s fees, this Court has the discretion to extend this deadline for good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (noting that a court may, for good cause, extend deadlines where a motion is made before the original time expires); Wood v. Mut. Redevelopment Houses, Inc., No. 22-cv-09493-AT, 2024 WL 4451414, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2024) (noting that district courts “have the inherent authority to manage their dockets to promote the efficient and expedient resolution of cases”) (citation and quotations omitted).

Good cause exists here given the disharmony between MLC’s deadline for filing a notice of appeal and Spotify’s deadline to move for attorney’s fees. Requiring Spotify to prepare a motion for fees while a potential appeal—which could alter the scope of Spotify’s fees motion or even eliminate Spotify’s entitlement to fees—remains pending would create a number of inefficiencies.

Accordingly, extending the time to file a fees motion would promote judicial efficiency by suspending the need for briefing and a decision until (if an appeal is filed) Spotify’s “status as a prevailing party is confirmed by the Court of Appeals.” Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 1997 WL 542560, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 1997); see Grubhub Inc. v. City of New York, No. 21- cv-10602-AT, ECF No. 241 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2024) (extending plaintiffs’ deadline to move for fees-and-costs to sixty days after the defendant’s deadline to file a notice of appeal, or sixty days after an appellate mandate, in the interest of judicial economy). Further, extending Spotify’s deadline to move for attorney’s fees will in no way prejudice MLC, which has joined this request.

This is the first request for an extension of time to move for attorney’s fees. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.

Respectfully submitted, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON LATHAM & WATKINS LLP & GARRISON LLP /s/ Jay Cohen! {sf Allison L. Stillman GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2025 is J New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge