PFIZER INC., PUBLICIS, INC., FLUID MUSIC, EAST WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND BRIAN TRANSEAU P/K/A \u201cBT\u201d,

Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for a stay seeks relief from nothing more than a problem
of their own creation. After asking this Court to consider their financial condition before
entering an order on Defendants\u2019 motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs, Plaintiffs submitted
information that disregards the Court\u2019s explicit instructions and is implausible on its face.
Now facing discovery designed to examine the completeness and accuracy of Plaintiffs\u2019
submissions, Plaintiffs ask the Court to halt all further proceedings on that issue. The only
ground for that request is an appeal that is premature and ineffective under the Federal
Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure, as well as this Court\u2019s May 23 order extending
Plaintiffs\u2019 time to appeal the judgment of dismissal until 30 days after the Court enters an
order \u201cdisposing\u201d of Defendants\u2019 fee motion.

If Plaintiffs are granted a stay, it will result in the piecemeal adjudication of
this case, and the potential for further financial obfuscation. Through their submissions
and request for a stay, Plaintiffs have demonstrated they are not committed to a full and
fair inquiry into their financial condition, and the Court should therefore decline to
consider Plaintiffs\u2019 financial condition on that basis. Rather than stay further proceedings,
the Court should simply dispose of the pending fee motion by issuing an order awarding
Defendants fees based in the full amount of fees and expenses documented by Defendants.
Once this Court enters that order (or any final order on the fee motion), Plaintiffs can

A. The Court Should Not Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of
Plaintiffs\u2019 Appeal Because Plaintiffs\u2019 Appeal Is Premature, Ineffective
And Subject To Dismissal By The Second Circuit

Plaintiffs request that this Court stay proceedings while they appeal two
supposed orders: (1) the Court\u2019s May 9, 2007 order granting Defendants\u2019 motion for
summary judgment; and (2) the Court\u2019s September 11, 2007 \u201cdecision and order \u2026
granting Defendants\u2019 motion for attorneys\u2019 fees.\u201d Plaintiffs\u2019 Memorandum of Law in
Support of Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal. (\u201cPl. Br.\u201d) at 4.

The fact is Plaintiffs\u2019 have no proper appeal. Their appeal of the judgment on the merits is \u201cineffective\u201d under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and there is no appealable order concerning attorneys\u2019 fees.

On May 23, the Court entered an order on the parties\u2019 stipulation, which
extended Plaintiffs\u2019 time to appeal the merits judgment to \u201c30 days after the Court enters
an order disposing of Defendants\u2019 motion for attorneys\u2019 fees, as set forth in Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(iii).\u201d Declaration of Julie A. Ahrens (\u201cAhrens Dec.\u201d)
Ex. A, Stipulation and Order Extending Time to File Motion for Attorneys\u2019 Fees, Request
to Tax Costs, and Notice of Appeal (\u201cStipulation and Order\u201d) at 2. Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), in turn, states that any notice of appeal of the merits judgment
that is filed before that date is not \u201ceffective\u201d until the Court enters an order \u201cdisposing\u201d of
Defendants\u2019 motions for attorneys\u2019 fees.See Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(4)(B) (\u201cif a party