Grant v. Trump
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-07103
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Grant v. Trump, defendants asked Judge Koeltl to pause supplemental-briefing deadlines; the provided text shows no ruling.
The parties and their scheduled supplemental briefing, including the plaintiffs and the defendants identified in the letter.
What happened
In Grant v. Trump, the defendants asked the court to pause deadlines for additional written arguments supporting and opposing their pending request to dismiss the complaint. They based the request on a pending rehearing request in a related Second Circuit copyright case and a recent Supreme Court copyright decision.
The plaintiffs opposed the request. The letter identifies deadlines of May 3, June 1, and June 15, 2021, for the defendants’ supplemental brief, the plaintiffs’ response, and the defendants’ reply.
The provided text is a defense lawyers’ letter dated April 27, 2021, not a court order. It does not show what Judge John G. Koeltl decided about the request.
The detailed version
- Grant v. Trump · No. 1:20-cv-07103
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 30, 2021
Document and posture
The provided text is a letter from defense counsel to Judge John G. Koeltl. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state a court ruling.
Background
The defendants, identified as Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., had a pending motion to dismiss the complaint. The court had previously allowed supplemental briefing about a recent Second Circuit decision concerning copyright fair use. A scheduling order set deadlines for the defendants’ supplemental brief on May 3, 2021; the plaintiffs’ response on June 1, 2021; and the defendants’ reply on June 15, 2021.
Request and response
Defense counsel asked the court to hold those supplemental-briefing deadlines in abeyance, meaning to pause them, until the Second Circuit acted on a petition for rehearing in the related copyright case. The letter stated that the petition relied in part on the Supreme Court’s recent decision concerning fair use under copyright law. The plaintiffs opposed the request.
Disposition
The provided text does not disclose whether Judge Koeltl granted, denied, or otherwise decided the request. It also does not resolve the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.