Whether a federal court may grant an extension of time for filing a reply brief based on counsel's professional scheduling conflicts

No question identified. : 5. There is good cause for the extension of the reply brief. Undersigned counsel has several obligations that would make it difficult to prepare the reply brief absent an extension. These include, for example: a. an oral argument in the Second Circuit in Puris v. TikTok, No. 25322, on January 23, 2026; b. long-planned client meetings in Brussels, Belgium, the week of January 26, 2026; c. a reply brief due on January 29, 2026, in Coleman v. Chevron Corp., No. (C.D. Cal.); d. a petition for certiorari due to this Court on February 19, 2026, in Aviagames, Inc. v. Pandolfi, see 25A655; e. and a Second Circuit oral argument noticed for the week of March 16, 2026, in Curtis v. Hilton Worldwide, No. 24-3244. 6. This schedule would permit this case to be heard during the Court’s March sitting. Petitioners’ reply brief would be due on or before March 3, 2026, and would therefore be received by the Clerk more than 10 days before the beginning of the March sitting on March 23, 2026. WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that if Respondents pending motion for an extension is granted, an order be entered extending the time to file the reply brief by 10 days, up to and including March 3, 2026. January 7, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Traci L. Lovitt TRACI L. LOVITT Counsel of Record JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, New York 10281 (212) 326-3939 Counsel for Petitioners