In Garcia v. Google Inc., Google and YouTube have filed their response in opposition to Garcia’s emergency motion for contempt

In Garcia v. Google Inc., Google and YouTube have filed their response in opposition to Garcia’s emergency motion for contempt: You can access the companies’ response at this link. This past Wednesday, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ordered Google and YouTube to file a response to the contempt motion within 72 hours of that order.Because the 72-hour period would expire today, on a Saturday, I took a look at Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a)(2) (a subsection of the rule governing the computation of time titled “Period Stated in Hours” applicable both to the appellate rules and to appellate court orders) to confirm whether the actual deadline for the response would be today (literally 72 hours after the entry of the Ninth Circuit’s order) or whether …

via How Appealing:

In Garcia v. Google Inc., Google and YouTube have filed their response in opposition to Garcia’s emergency motion for contempt: You can access the companies’ response at this link.

This past Wednesday, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ordered Google and YouTube to file a response to the contempt motion within 72 hours of that order.

Because the 72-hour period would expire today, on a Saturday, I took a look at Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a)(2) (a subsection of the rule governing the computation of time titled “Period Stated in Hours” applicable both to the appellate rules and to appellate court orders) to confirm whether the actual deadline for the response would be today (literally 72 hours after the entry of the Ninth Circuit’s order) or whether the deadline would be extended until Monday.

Rule 26(a)(2) states (paragraph breaks omitted): “Period Stated in Hours. When the period is stated in hours: (A) begin counting immediately on the occurrence of the event that triggers the period; (B) count every hour, including hours during intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays; and (C) if the period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the same time on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”

As I read the text of Rule 26(a)(2), if the 72-hour period expired at 2 p.m. today, Google and YouTube would have had until 2 p.m. on Monday, March 31, 2014 to timely file their response. That would appear to be the plain meaning of the text of Rule 26(a)(2), and nothing in the Ninth Circuit’s order directing a response made Rule 26(a)(2) inapplicable to computing the time afforded under the order within which to file a response.

Nevertheless, erring on the side of caution, Google and YouTube decided to file their response before the 72-hour period expired, even though Rule 26(a)(2) appears to have allowed them until some point on Monday to file a timely response.

For more info: In Garcia v. Google Inc., Google and YouTube have filed their response in opposition to Garcia’s emergency motion for contempt

How Appealing

In Garcia v. Google Inc., Google and YouTube have filed their response in opposition to Garcia’s emergency motion for contempt

The post In Garcia v. Google Inc., Google and YouTube have filed their response in opposition to Garcia’s emergency motion for contempt appeared first on FX FOREX.

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1rQUsG6



Law Around, department, garcia, howard-bashman, judge, monday, ninth-circuit, period, period-stated, rule