Category Archives: Attachment L

SL

Comments are closed.

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the motion for final class certification and final approval of a proposed class action settlement of the above-captioned case (the “Action”) entered into between, on the one hand, Plaintiffs Paul Dickson, Joseph Goulden, Daniel Hoffman, Betty Miles, and Herbert Mitgang (“Author Sub-Class Representative Plaintiffs”), and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Pearson Education, Inc., Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Simon & Schuster, Inc., and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (“Publisher Sub-Class Representative Plaintiffs”) (collectively “Representative Plaintiffs”), and, on the other hand, defendant Google Inc. (“Google”). Plaintiffs, through their counsel, the firms of Boni & Zack LLC, Milberg LLP, and Kohn, Swift & Graf, PC for the Author Sub-Class (“Author Sub-Class Counsel”), and the firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP for the Publisher Sub-Class (“Publisher Sub-Class Counsel”) (collectively “Class Counsel”), have moved for an Order approving the settlement of the Action in accordance with a Settlement Agreement, dated October 28, 2008, between Plaintiffs and Google (the “Settlement Agreement”). Having read and considered the Settlement Agreement and having held a hearing on the fairness of the proposed Settlement, at which objectors to the Settlement could appear, and based upon familiarity with the files and proceedings in this matter, the Court finds that:

Also posted in Settlement | Comments closed

SL 01

Comments are closed.

Unless otherwise specified, all defined terms herein shall have the same meaning as in the Settlement Agreement.

Also posted in Section L1, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 02

Comments are closed.

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement by Order of _____________ (the “Preliminary Approval Order”).

Also posted in Section L2, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 03

Comments are closed.

Notice of the proposed Settlement has been timely disseminated in accordance with the terms of the Preliminary Approval Order, which authorized such notice. Such notice is the best practicable notice to be provided under the circumstances and satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable standards of due process.

Also posted in Section L3, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 04

Comments are closed.

The issues as to liability and remedies in the Action are issues as to which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and the proposed settlement of the Action constitutes a resolution of those issues that is fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the Class and Sub-Classes certified herein.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

Also posted in Section L4, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 05

Comments are closed.

The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in the best interest of the Class and Sub- Classes, and the parties are directed to consummate the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms.

Also posted in Section L5, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 06

Comments are closed.

The following Class (the “Settlement Class”) and two Subclasses, provisionally certified in the Preliminary Approval Order, are now finally certified for purposes of the Settlement only:

Also posted in Section L6, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 06.1

Comments are closed.

Settlement Class All Persons that, as of January 5, 2009, have a Copyright Interest in one or more Books or Inserts. All Settlement Class members are either members of the Author Sub-Class or the Publisher Sub-Class, or both. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Google, the members of Google’s Board of Directors and its executive officers.

Also posted in Section L6, Section L6.1, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 06.2

Comments are closed.

Author Sub-Class Members of the Settlement Class who are authors, and their heirs, successors and assigns, and any other members of the Settlement Class who are not members of the Publisher Sub-Class.

Also posted in Section L6, Section L6.2, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 06.3

Comments are closed.

Publisher Sub-Class Members of the Settlement Class that are (a) companies that publish books, and their exclusive licensees, successors and assignees, and (b) companies that publish Periodicals and have a Copyright Interest in one or more Inserts, and their exclusive licensees, successors, and assignees.

Also posted in Section L6, Section L6.3, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 07

3 responses to “SL 07”

  1. Gillian Spraggs says:

    By “final injunctive relief “, as I take it, is meant here the scheme for continuing to digitise books and commercially exploit the scans by posting advertisements against them and by other means, and the entire machinery of the Book Rights Registry, with required registration for payment. Is there any precedent in US law for an injunctive relief of this nature and scope?

  2. This is boilerplate langauge from Rule 23., the U.S. federal rule of procedure for class actions. It’s recited here as a justification for why the court should certify a class action; it doesn’t actually specifically refer to the settlement. The kind of “injucntive relief” this provision is contemplating would be, for example, an order telling Google not to scan any books, or any provisions of the settlement that would be binding on Google for the benefits of the plaintiff class members. This section isn’t being used to justify the settlement itself.

  3. Gillian Spraggs says:

    Thanks for clearing that up.

The Court finds that (a) the Author Sub-Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Author Sub- Class; (c) claims of the Author Sub-Class Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of all members of the Author Sub-Class; (d) the Author Sub-Class Representative Plaintiffs and Author Sub-Class Counsel have fairly and adequately protected and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Author Sub-Class; (e) Google has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Author Sub-Class, making final injunctive relief appropriate respecting the Author Sub-Class as a whole; (f) common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Author Sub-Class; and (g) a class action (with subclasses) is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

Also posted in Section L7, Settlement | Comments closed

SL 08

Comments are closed.

The Court finds that (a) the Publisher Sub-Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Publisher SubAttachment Class; (c) claims of the Publisher Sub-Class Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of all members of the Publisher Sub-Class; (d) the Publisher Sub-Class Representative Plaintiffs and Publisher Sub-Class Counsel have fairly and adequately protected and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class; (e) Google has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Publisher Sub-Class, making final injunctive relief appropriate respecting the Publisher Sub-Class as a whole; (f) common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Publisher Sub-Class; and (g) a class action (with sub-classes) is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

Also posted in Section L8, Settlement | Comments closed