Washington, D.C.’s James Madison Memorial Building, which houses the U.S. Copyright Office. Photo Credit: UpstateNYer
The battle for Copyright Office control isn’t letting up: Shira Perlmutter is now seeking a high-speed summary judgement resolution, while the Trump administration is firing back against the sought “fast-track schedule.”
Those developments might come as a surprise in light of the court’s most recent determination. Upon denying Perlmutter’s restraining order ask, the presiding judge also instructed the parties to “submit a joint proposed briefing schedule” concerning a potential preliminary injunction push on the plaintiff’s end, we reported yesterday.
Instead, Perlmutter’s legal team has opted to entreat the court to green-light an “expedited briefing schedule” on the summary judgement front.
There’s “a pressing need for both the parties and the public to obtain a speedy resolution of this matter,” the former USCO head indicated, “as the leadership of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office will remain in dispute until the legality of Defendants’ actions is adjudicated on the merits.
“It would best serve judicial economy and the interests of the parties to proceed to final judgment,” the plaintiff summed up.
That refers specifically to a desired June 5th deadline for the actual summary judgement motion, a June 12th cutoff for the defendants’ response, and four days thereafter for Perlmutter’s reply.
However, if “expedited summary judgment is unavailable,” Perlmutter would like “an opportunity” to hammer out the aforementioned preliminary injunction schedule, per the legal document.
As highlighted, the Trump administration isn’t on board with the quick-moving schedule, which it formally opposed in a filing today.
“But there is nothing ‘pressing’ about a legal issue remaining ‘in dispute’ until an adjudication on the merits after a case has run its normal course,” the Justice Department penned.
“That is true of all litigation, but that fact does not give every plaintiff a right to expedited proceedings,” the Trump administration continued. “And it especially should not here, where this Court recognized in denying the motion for a temporary restraining order that Plaintiff has failed to show that any of the purported harms she identified are either irreparable or imminent.”
Besides rejecting the rapid-fire schedule, the court shouldn’t entertain Perlmutter’s above-described request to cement a preliminary injunction timetable, the defendants said in more words.
“This Court gave Plaintiff that opportunity already,” the DOJ wrote, “but rather than propose a schedule for preliminary injunction briefing to Defendants, Plaintiff filed her present motion. That is no doubt because Plaintiff does not believe she could obtain a preliminary injunction given this Court’s holding that she has failed to show the irreparable harm necessary for emergency injunctive relief.”
How, then, should the case proceed? According to the Trump administration, a June 5th “or later” summary judgement cutoff for the plaintiff would be suitable, followed by a three-week window for an opposition response and a cross-motion for summary judgement.
From there, Team Perlmutter would have another three weeks yet to respond, with the defendants’ reply in support of the summary judgement cross-motion due within two more weeks.
At the time of writing, the court hadn’t weighed in on the opposing views. Despite the benefit of frequent updates thus far, though, it’s possible that the case will spin out over weeks (if not months should a full legal proceeding take place).
Among other things, the window could bring with it the appointment of permanent Library and Copyright Office heads – and, in turn, fresh legal questions as well as a variety of considerations for the music space.
Feature Story, Music Industry News, Music Law, 1:25-cv-01659
This post was originally authored and published by Dylan Smith Digital Music News via RSS Feed. Join today to get your news feed on Nationwide Report®.
