Elaine J. Goldenberg

Elaine J. Goldenberg is a partner in the Firm’s Litigation Department. She is a member of the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and the Communications Practice. Ms. Goldenberg has argued in the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal and state appellate courts, and has been involved in a broad range of groundbreaking litigation matters before those tribunals. She has also represented clients in federal district and state trial courts, administrative proceedings, and arbitrations, focusing on case strategy and dispositive motions involving complex questions of law. She has significant experience in commercial disputes involving complicated issues of statutory interpretation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, and has filed appellate briefs addressing (among other topics) important points of patent law, bankruptcy law, and communications law.

From 1997-1998, Ms. Goldenberg served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Court, Southern District of New York. From 1998-1999, Ms. Goldenberg served as a law clerk to the Honorable Sandra L. Lynch, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Ms. Goldenberg’s recent work includes the following:

-- Argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Petitioners in Hui v. Castaneda, No. 08-1529, and obtained a unanimous victory. The Supreme Court held that federal Public Health Service officers and employees are absolutely immune by statute from constitutional claims against them.

-- Ms. Goldenberg led the Firm’s team in the U.S. Supreme Court in Kucana v. Holder, a 2010 case involving the jurisdiction of federal courts to review motions to reopen immigration cases. The Firm served as co-counsel for the Petitioner, and obtained a 9-0 victory.

-- Ms. Goldenberg was a key member of the Firm’s team that successfully argued before the Supreme Court in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., a 2005 landmark case that involved file-sharing services such as Grokster and StreamCast. The team convinced the court that peer-to-peer file sharing services that allow Internet users to download music and movies at will knowingly contribute to massive copyright infringement.