Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al

Filing 314

RESPONSE re 313 MOTION for Leave to File Motion In Limine To Prevent Plaintiffs From Introducing Improper Expert Testimony filed by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc., Sage Publications, Inc.. (Rains, John)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, INC., and SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1425-ODE Plaintiffs, -vMARK P. BECKER, in his official capacity as Georgia State University President, et. al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION IN LIMINE TO PREVENT PLAINTIFFS FROM INTRODUCING IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY At 9:26 p.m. on May 14, the Saturday night before trial, Defendants sought leave to file an untimely motion in limine. The premise offered for this extraordinary relief is the false suggestion that Plaintiffs’ trial brief (filed on April 29) and their opposition to another motion in limine (filed May 9) revealed for the first time that Plaintiffs “planned to present evidence on the issue of market harm.” Defs.’ Mot., Docket No. 313 at 1. The unjustifiable timing of the motion is hardly 879316.1   counterbalanced by its merit, of which there is none. Without even the pretense of legal support, Defendants assert incorrectly that proof of market harm requires expert testimony and that Plaintiffs’ lay witnesses should be precluded from testifying as to the adverse impact on their businesses of the ongoing infringement at GSU. Because Defendants’ motion is both untimely and baseless, it should be denied. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY I. PLAINTIFFS TIMELY DISCLOSED THE EVIDENCE OF MARKET HARM THEY INTEND TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL Last December, Plaintiffs supplemented their responses to several of Defendants’ interrogatories pursuant to the Court’s November 5, 2010 Order. In those supplemental responses, Plaintiffs disclosed the evidence they intended to offer at trial on the issue of market harm. For example, in response to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 15, which asked Plaintiffs to identify “the amount of harm in U.S. dollars that the markets or potential market for Plaintiffs’ Copyrights have suffered as a result of the posting of excerpts of works covered by Plaintiffs’ Copyrights on ERes, uLearn, and/or course and faculty websites at GSU from April 2005 to the present,” Plaintiffs identified all four of the witnesses Plaintiffs will call at trial (Frank Smith, Niko Pfund, Carol Richman, and Tracey Armstrong), and they directed Defendants to summary judgment declarations filed 879316.1   2  by knowledgeable employees of each Plaintiff as illustrative of the market harm testimony those witnesses would offer at trial. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First and Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs at No. 15, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiffs also referenced the portions of several of their previous submissions, including Plaintiffs’ extensive summary judgment briefing, that explained in detail the legal and factual basis for Plaintiffs’ contention that the ongoing, systematic copyright infringement at GSU is harming the market for their works. Id. Further, in response to another of Defendants’ interrogatories, Plaintiffs identified numerous specific documents of the sort they will introduce at trial to show market harm, including financial information about each Plaintiff and licensing and permissions data for the specific works at issue in this case. Id. at No. 17. Those documents, and others, are included on Plaintiffs’ trial exhibit list, and to the extent Defendants wished to object to them (or to file a motion in limine as to them), they had ample opportunity to do so. In short, Defendants’ eleventh-hour assertion that they were surprised by Plaintiffs’ decision not to rely solely on the testimony of Debra Mariniello to show market harm is not credible. Because Plaintiffs thoroughly briefed the issue at the summary judgment stage, Defendants have known for well over a year the legal 879316.1   3  basis for Plaintiffs’ market harm arguments, and through Plaintiffs’ supplemental interrogatory responses, Defendants have had the names of the potential fact witnesses Plaintiffs could call on this issue for over six months. Defendants’ motion is therefore untimely. It would, if granted, severely prejudice Plaintiffs’ ability to present their case beginning on Tuesday, and on that basis alone it should be denied. II. EXPERT TESTIMONY IS NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW MARKET HARM Defendants’ proposed motion also fails on the merits. Defendants do not cite any authority for the proposition that copyright market harm must be established through an expert witness. In fact, as Plaintiffs explained in their opposition brief to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Debra J. Mariniello as an Expert, courts routinely find copyright market harm without expert testimony. Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Debra J. Mariniello as an Expert, Docket No. 135 at 16-20. All Plaintiffs are required to show to establish market harm is that “the effect of [Defendants’] use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work,” 17 U.S.C. § 107(4) (emphasis added) – i.e., “whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a 879316.1   4  substantially adverse impact on the potential market.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs intend to make this showing at trial by offering testimony from three (non-expert) Plaintiff witnesses intimately familiar with their businesses and the academic market to establish the adverse impact that a continuation and proliferation nationally of GSU’s practices would have on the viability of Plaintiffs’ businesses. Plaintiffs also intend to offer testimony from the CEO of the Copyright Clearance Center, who will establish, among other things, that there is a viable and efficient permissions market for the works of publishers, including Plaintiffs, authorizing the very sorts of copying activities that are involved in this lawsuit. There is ample precedent for evaluating copyright market harm without expert testimony. For example, in its analysis of fair use factor four, the Sixth Circuit in Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Servs., Inc., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996), found that “most of the copyshops that compete with [defendant] in the sale of coursepacks pay permission fees for the privilege of duplicating and selling excerpts from copyrighted works”; that “[t]he three plaintiffs together have been collecting permission fees at a rate approaching $500,000 a year”; and that “[i]f copyshops across the nation were to start doing 879316.1   5  what the defendants have been doing here, this revenue stream would shrivel and the potential value of the copyrighted works of scholarship published by the plaintiffs would be diminished accordingly.” Princeton Univ. Press, 99 F.3d at 1387 (emphasis added). The court did not require expert testimony to reach that straightforward, commonsense conclusion concerning likely market harm. Similarly, in American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1995), the Second Circuit pointed to the existence of “a viable market” for licensing the rights to the journal articles in question; found it “appropriate that potential licensing revenues for photocopying be considered in a fair use analysis”; and affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiff publishers’ revenues would “increase significantly” if Texaco’s fair use defense were rejected and Texaco were required to pay for the right to reproduce the plaintiffs’ articles. 60 F.3d at 929-30. No expert testimony was deemed necessary. This Court should reach a similar conclusion after trial based on non-expert testimony and documentary evidence that will provide the Court with ample grounds for making the necessary findings of market harm to reject Defendants’ fair use defense and to award Plaintiffs injunctive relief. 879316.1   6  CONCLUSION Because Plaintiffs timely disclosed the witnesses and evidence on which they intend to rely to show market harm, and because there is no requirement that copyright market harm be established through expert testimony, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants’ motion for leave to file an untimely motion in limine. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May, 2011. /s/ John H. Rains IV Edward B. Krugman Georgia Bar No. 429927 John H. Rains IV Georgia Bar No. 556052 BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW Suite 3900 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 881-4100 R. Bruce Rich (pro hac vice) Randi Singer (pro hac vice) Jonathan Bloom (pro hac vice) Todd D. Larson (pro hac vice) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 879316.1   7  CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(D), I hereby certify that this document complies with the font and point selections set forth in Local Rule 5.1. This document was prepared in Times New Roman 14 point font. /s/ John H. Rains IV John H. Rains IV 879316.1   8  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day filed the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION IN LIMINE TO PREVENT PLAINTIFFS FROM INTRODUCING IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF filing system which will send e-mail notification of such filing to opposing counsel as follows: Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq. John W. Harbin, Esq. Natasha H. Moffitt, Esq. Kristen A. Swift, Esq. C. Suzanne Johnson, Esq. Mary Katherine Bates, Esq. KING & SPALDING 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Katrina M. Quicker, Esq. Richard W. Miller, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR, LLP 999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Anthony B. Askew, Esq. MCKEON, MEUNIER, CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC 817 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 900 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 879316.1   9  Mary Jo Volkert, Esq. Assistant State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square Atlanta, Georgia 30334 This 16th day of May, 2011. /s/ John H. Rains IV John H. Rains IV 879316.1   10  EXHIBIT A BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 ONE ATLANTIC CENTER 1201 WEST PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309·3417 (404) 881-4100 TELECOPIER (404) 881-4111 JOHN H. RAINS IV WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (404) 881-4128 RAINS@BMELAW.COM December 10,2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq. King & Spalding LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Re: Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Mark P. Becker, et al. United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia Civil Action File No. 1:08-CV-1425-0DE Dear Steve: Pursuant to the terms of the November 5, 2010 Scheduling Order in the above-referenced case and the parties' agreements concerning supplemental discovery, enclosed please find documents bearing the following Bates ranges: CUPXOOOOOl -289, OUPXOOOOOl - 1134, SAGEXOOOOO 1 - 1089. This production is comprised of both electronic and paper documents. Also in enclosed are Plaintiff's Supplemental Interrogatory Responses. Please let me know if you have any questions. jlh<h John H. Rains IV Enclosures cc: Edward B. Krugman, Esq. (w/out enclosures) Todd Larson, Esq. (via e-mail; w/out enclosures) 826215.1 EXHIBIT A - 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, ATLANTA DIVISION CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, INC., and SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1425-0DE Plaintiffs, - vs.MARK P. BECKER, in his official capacity as Georgia State University President, et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Order of this Court dated November 5, 2010, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc., and Sage Publications, Inc. ("Plaintiffs"),.hereby supplement their October 14, 2008 Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (the "Initial Responses"), their February 9, 2009 and April2, 2010 Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set 826224.1 EXHIBIT A - 2 oflnterrogatories to Plaintiffs (the "Supplemental Responses"), and their June 12, 2009 Responses and Objections to Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (the "Second Responses"). The following supplemental responses are made subject to, and incorporate by reference, the prefatory paragraphs, General Objections, and Objections to Definitions and Instructions stated in the Initial Responses, and the Specific Objections stated in the Supplemental Responses and Second Responses. SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS Interrogatory No. 2 Identify each of Plaintiffs' copyrights that you allege GSU has infringed, including, but not limited to, indicating each certificate of registration by registration number for each such copyright. Response to Interrogatory No.2 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Initial and Supplemental Responses to this Interrogatory and all objections included or referenced therein. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Docket No. 228, Plaintiffs' response to the Court's orders of August 11 and 12, 2010 ("Plaintiffs' August Response"), as well as to Attachment A to this document, which lists, to the extent available, the registration number for (1) each work in Plaintiffs' August Response, and (2) each additional infringed work 826224.1 2 EXHIBIT A - 3 identified on the updated ERes reports produced by Defendants on November 5, 2010 for the 2009 Maymester, Summer 2009 term, and Fall2009 term (collectively, the "Subject Works"). Plaintiffs also state that they are producing copies of all registration certificates for the Subject Works that could be located after a reasonable search, and reserve the right to supplement that production as additional certificates are located or copies are obtained from the U.S. Copyright Office. Plaintiffs further state that given the present focus on works infringed after commencement of the litigation, Plaintiffs are seeking expedited registration of certain Subject Works not yet registered and will provide registration certificates and documents related to such registrations as soon as they are available. Interrogatory No. 3 Describe in detail how and when you obtained ownership of Plaintiffs' copyrights and identify each Person with knowledge or information regarding your ownership of such copyrights. Response to Interrogatory No. 3 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Initial Response to this Interrogatory and all objections included or referenced therein. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs also state that they are producing the actual agreements by which they came to own or control the copyrights in the Subject Works (or by which they became exclusive licensees) and reserve the right 826224.1 3 EXHIBIT A - 4 to supplement that production as additional agreements are located. Plaintiffs also refer Defendants to Attachment A, which lists, to the extent available, the persons with knowledge or information regarding Plaintiffs' ownership/control of the Subject Works; in instances where the person who participated directly in negotiating with the author ofthe Subject Work cannot be identified, or has since left the Plaintiff company, Attachment A identifies the person(s) at the Plaintiff company with general knowledge and information as to the company's author contracts and contracting process. Interrogatory No. 6 For each of Plaintiffs' copyrights for which a certificate of registration has not issued, please state whether an application for registration was made to the Copyright Office for each such copyright and the date(s) of such application. Response to Interrogatory No. 6 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Initial Response to this Interrogatory and all objections included or referenced therein. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Attachment A, which indicates, in the penultimate colunm, the works for which a U.S. copyright registration number has not been assigned to date. Plaintiffs state that given the present focus on works infringed after commencement of the litigation, they are seeking expedited registration of those works and will provide registration 826224.1 4 EXHIBIT A - 5 certificates and documents related to such registrations as soon as they are available. Plaintiffs note, however, that no applications have been or will be made for those works identified on Attachment A as "First Published in the United Kingdom." Interrogatory No.9 Identify each Person to whom a license to reproduce in whole or in part the works that are the subject of Plaintiffs' copyrights has been granted. Response to Interrogatory No. 9 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Initial and Supplemental Responses to this Interrogatory and all objections included or referenced therein. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to CUPX 000237- CUPX 000289, OUPX 000643- OUPX 000651, OUPX 000652- OUPX 000800, SAGEX 000454- SAGEX 000501, and SAGEX 000503- SAGEX 001043, which provide the requested information for each Subject Work. Interrogatory No. 15 Identify the amount of harm in U.S. dollars that the markets or potential market for Plaintiffs' Copyrights have suffered as a result of the posting of excerpts of works covered by Plaintiffs' Copyrights on ERes, uLeam, and/or course and faculty websites at GSU from April 2005 to the present. 826224.1 5 EXHIBIT A - 6 Response to Interrogatory No. 15 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their response to this Interrogatory from the Second Responses and all objections included or referenced therein. (References in the Second Response to Plaintiffs' "response to Interrogatory 17" should be understood to encompass and refer as well to Plaintiffs' supplemental response to Interrogatory 17 below, which lists, among other things, financial documents identifying Plaintiffs' revenues for book sales, licensing, and rights and permissions for the Subject Works.) Plaintiffs also refer Defendants to the following filings and testimony that further describe how Plaintiffs have been harmed by Defendants' activities, including infringement ofthe Subject Works: • Plaintiffs' August Response, Docket No. 228; • Declaration of Sara van Valkenberg, SAGE Publications, Exhibit 3 ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (~~ 8-16, 3343); deposition testimony of Ms. van Valkenberg and anticipated testimony of Ms. van Valkenberg and/or Carol Richman, Director of Licensing for SAGE Publications; • Declaration ofNiko Pfund, Oxford University Press, Exhibit 5 ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (~~ 7-8, 17-20, 34-44); deposition and anticipated testimony of Mr. Pfund and/or John Challice, V.P. and Publisher for OUP Higher Ed. Division; • Declaration of Frank Smith, Cambridge University Press, Exhibit 4 ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (~~ 30-42); deposition and anticipated testimony of Mr. Smith; • Declaration of Steven Sheffrin, Exhibit 9 ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for 826224.1 6 EXHIBIT A - 7 Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (in its entirety); deposition and anticipated testimony of Mr. Sheffrin; • Affidavit of Debra J. Mariniello (attaching expert report), Exhibit 10 ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (pp. 16-19,2022 of expert report); deposition testimony of Ms. Mariniello and anticipated testimony ofMs. Mariniello and/or Tracey Armstrong, CEO of Copyright Clearance Center; • Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Exclude Debra J. Mariniello as an Expert, Docket No. 134 (pp. 8-20); • Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law ISO Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 142, (pp. 10-12, 16-21, 32-35, 54-58); • Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1 Statement ofFacts ISO Their Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 165 (pp. 16-20,33-49, 64-76); • Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 185 (pp. 4-9); • Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law In Further Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 206 (pp. 12-16, 18-19). Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response as new documents are identified, and after reviewing Defendants' production of documents (including course syllabi, fair-use checklists, etc.) related to the Subject Works. Interrogatory No. 16 Identify the amount of revenue in U.S. dollars that Plaintiffs have lost as a result of the postings of excerpts of works covered by Plaintiffs Copyrights on Eres, uLeam, and/or course and faculty websites from April 2005 to the present. Response to Interrogatory No. 16 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses and objections to 826224.1 7 EXHIBIT A - 8 Interrogatories No. 15 above and 17 below, as well as their response to this Interrogatory from the Second Responses and all objections included or referenced therein. Interrogatory No. 17 Identify all facts and all documents (by bates-number) that support Plaintiffs' contention that Plaintiffs' have suffered market harm for the works covered by Plaintiffs' Copyrights as a result of the posting of excerpts of such works on Eres, uLearn, and/or course and faculty websites at GSU from April 2005 to the present. Response to Interrogatory No. 17 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their response to this Interrogatory from the Second Responses and all objections included or referenced therein. (References in the Second Responses to Plaintiffs' "responses and objections to Interrogatory No. 15" should be understood to encompass and refer as well to Plaintiffs' supplemental response to Interrogatory 15 above.) Subject to and without waving said objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Plaintiffs' August Response (which detailed lost permissions fees and book sale prices associated with infringement of the Subject Works), as well as all documents produced by Defendants and Plaintiffs in this proceeding, including in particular (a) the documents listed in Plaintiffs' response to this Interrogatory from the Second Response and (b) the following recently produced documents related to the Subject 826224.1 8 EXHIBIT A - 9 Works: • GSU Eres Reports o GaState0064598-65065. • Plaintiffs' Revenue/Financial Documents o CUPX 000170- CUPX 000236; o OUPX 000639; OUPX 000640- OUPX 000642; o SAGEX 000502; SAGEX 000414- SAGEX 000453, 001044. SAGEX • Plaintiffs' Revenue from Licensing and Permissions (attributable to CCC .and in-house permissions department activities) o CUPX 000237- CUPX 000289; o OUPX 000643- OUPX 000651; OUPX 000652- OUPX 000800; o SAGEX 000454- SAGEX 000501; SAGEX 000503- SAGEX 001043. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response as new documents are identified, and after reviewing Defendants' production of documents (including course syllabi, fair-use checklists, etc.) related to the Subject Works. Interrogatory No. 18 Identify all facts and all documents (by bates-number) that support Plaintiffs' contention that "Georgia State's ongoing unauthorized digital distribution of Plaintiffs' copyrighted materials is directly substituting both for student purchases or [sic] copyrighted books and for 'coursepaks' or 'copy pocks" [sic]. 826224.1 9 EXHIBIT A - 10 Response to Interrogatory No. 18 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses and objections to Interrogatories No. 15 and 17 above. Interrogatory No. 19 Identify all documents (by bates-number) that support Plaintiffs' contention that "Plaintiffs, authors, and the publishing community at large will continue to face a certain, substantial, and continuing loss of revenue." Response to Interrogatory No. 19 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses and objections to Interrogatory No. 17 above. Respectfully submitted this lOth day ofDecember. Ed .Krugman kru man@bmelaw.com Georgia Bar No. 429927 John H. Rains IV rains@bmelaw.com Georgia Bar No. 556052 BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 R. Bruce Rich (pro hac vice) 826224.1 10 EXHIBIT A - 11 Randi Singer (pro hac vice) Jonathan Bloom (pro hac vice) Todd D. Larson (pro hac vice) WElL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 826224.1 11 EXHIBIT A - 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS to be served as indicated: Via Electronic Mail and Hand Delivery Anthony B. Askew, Esq. Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq. Kristen A. Swift, Esq. C. Suzanne Johnson, Esq. King & Spalding 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Via Electronic Mail and First Class Mail Kristina M. Quicker, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR, LLP 999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Mary Jo Volkert, Esq. AssistantS. Attorney General 40 Capitol Square Atlanta, Georgia 30334 This lOth day of December, 2010. 826224.1 12 EXHIBIT A - 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, ATLANTA DNISION CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 1:0.8-CV-1425-0DE -vs. ~ MARKP. BECKER, in his official capacity as Georgia State University President, et al., Defendants. VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY ANSWERS I, Barbara Cohen, hereby declare pursuant to section1746 of title 28 of the United States Code: I am the General Counsel tor Oxford University Press, Inc. I am authorized to execute the answers to interrogatories on behalf of Oxford University Press, Inc. I have read the supplemental answers to Interrogatories No. 2, 3, 6, 9, and 1.5-19. These responses are based on information provided by multiple persons, and neither I nor any other single individual has personal knowledge of all the information set forth in the responses or considered ih their preparation. The responses are also necessarily limited by the records and information still in existence and discovered in the course of this action. Subject to these limitations, to the best ofmy knowledge, information and belief, I have determined that the supplemental answers to Interrogatories No. 2, 3, 6, 9, and 1519 are true and correct to the extent they provide information related to Oxford University Press, Inc. I verify, under penalty of peijury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 10, 2010. ~~ Barbara Cohen US_ACTJVE:\43577694\01\38985.0007 EXHIBIT A - 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, ATLANTA DIVISION CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1425-0DE - vs.MARK P. BECKER, in his official capacity as Georgia State University President, et al., Defendants. VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY ANSWERS I, Sara van Valkenburg, hereby declare pursuant to section 1746 of title 28 of the United States Code: I am the Contracts Manager for SAGE Publications, Inc. I am authorized to execute the answers to interrogatories on behalf of SAGE Publications. I have read the supplemental answers to Interrogatories No. 2, 3, 6, 9, and 15-19. These responses are based on information provided by multiple persons, and neither I nor any other single individual has personal knowledge of all the information set forth in the responses or considered in their preparation. The responses are also necessarily limited by the records and information still in existence and discovered in the course of this action. Subject to these limitations, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, I have determined that the supplemental answers to Interrogatories No.2, 3, 6, 9, and 15-19 are true and correct to the extent they provide information related to SAGE Publications, Inc. I verify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 10,2010. US_ACTIVE:\4357769010 1\)8985.0007, EXHIBIT A - 15 EXHIBIT A 138129.1 EXHIBIT A - 16 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 2009 Maymester 58-98 Flue-ncy ActiVities for Language I T.,,.,...hinn Cambridge Selections for AL8480- Classroom Practices in Teaching ESUEFL Murphy of Short Activities EXHIBIT A - 17 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 2009 Maymester AL8480Classroom Practices in Teaching ESUEFL Murphy First published in United Kingdom 217-228 12 Qualitative/ Interpretive Research in First published in United Kingdom EPS8500- Kaufmann Education I SAGE 717-732 733-768 923-948 Qualitative Research (2nd edition) 2 EXHIBIT A - 18 78 TX 5-220-475 & Digital Sales Manager Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 2009 Maymester EPS8500- Qualitative/ Interpretive Research in Education I 391-406 16 Kaufmann Lenses, SAGE Sara van Valkenburg, Contracts Manager EPS8510- Qualitative Research in Eduation II 923-948 Kaufmann United Kingdom TX4-032-771 in II 3 EXHIBIT A - 19 IRights & Digital Sales Manager IContracts Manager Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 2009 Maymester Management in ITransition The Economies: Czech Republic & Hungary Marni Kahn SOCI3216and Society Brown Gendered Society Reader Oxford Editor, Medical Learning additional chapter 774-782 812-819 892-900 901-913 914-926 121-137 to Challice, Publisher, Higher !Education 17 Cooper, Senior !commissioning Editor, Humanities & Social Sciences 4 EXHIBIT A - 20 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 2009 Maymester 5 EXHIBIT A - 21 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Summer2009 EPRS8510Qualitative Research in Sara van Valkenburg, Contracts Manager Kaufmann Education II & Digital Sales Manager of Feminist Research: 155-172 SAGE 18 EPS8280Anthropology of 32 Esposito Education 13 6 EXHIBIT A - 22 TX 6-175-287 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Summer2009 73-98 26 TX pending pending MUS8860Romantic Period 1800-1900 I Orr Companion to Schumann Cambridge I Unspecified I Unspecified I Unspecified Cooper, Senior Commissioning Editor, Humanities & Social Sciences 7 EXHIBIT A - 23 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Summer 2009 Cambridge Oxford MUS8860Romantic Period 1800-1900 1 1 (partial) 1 (partial) Orr 250-267 99-126 Oxford and tLearnino and the 8 EXHIBIT A - 24 28 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 AAS3000African-American Dixon Family partial 104-120 chapter) AH4900- Materiality of Egyptian Painting 9 EXHIBIT A - 25 pending Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 Registration pending AL8550Second Language Evaluation and Assessment Linthe, Senior Editor, English Teaching Kim 100-145 pending Linthe, Senior Editor, English Teaching Movements, 1918-1939 ANTH4440Epidemiology and A nth ropoIogy I McCombie pending . . . Evolution of Infectious D1sease TX4-319-137 10 EXHIBIT A - 26 · .. -·-·.r . . Jeremy Lew1s, Ed1tor, Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 ! Cyborgs in American Culture _ Ryan, Senior Commissioning Editor, Humanities & Social Sciences! I 11 EXHIBIT A - 27 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 Sherith Pankratz, Editor, Higher Education to Qualitative A Reader on Theory Practice 2 Methods TX 5-459-984 chapter Sara van Valkenburg, Contracts Manager EPRS8500Qualitative/ Interpretive Research in Education I Kaufmann 71-107 155-172 515-534 of Narrative Inquiry: IMapping a Methodology 35-76 SAGE 75 TX 7-031-746 42 Sara van Valkenburg, Contracts Manager 109-138 357-373 443-465 547-557 733-768 915-932 959-978 12 EXHIBIT A - 28 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 Interpretive Research in Education I Qualitative I Research in Education Ill EPRS8520- Qualitative Research in Education Ill Sara van Valkenburg, Contracts Manager Esposito 189-196 Research 13 EXHIBIT A - 29 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 of Understanding and \ Facilitating Adult Biological, Clinical and Cultural Perspectives Developmental pending Psychology: Personality and Socialization 566-588 ISeminar in Conceptual Development 23 Registration pending pending FILM4750Film Theory and Criticism Peter Labella, formerly Editor Barker Higher Education 345-355 716-724 14 EXHIBIT A - 30 John Challice, Publisher, Higher Education Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 in American Cultural Cambridge pending Beatrice Rehl, Publishing IDirector. Humanities & Social 15 EXHIBIT A - 31 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fa112009 + Unspecified Unspecified sections MUS8840Baroque Music First published in United Kingdom INiko Pfund, Publisher, sections Orr Editor, Higher 16 EXHIBIT A - 32 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 Theoretical and Philosophical Foundations for Moloney 541-556 16 21-53 33 PERS2001Comparative Culture Lasner . Foreign Policy Foreign Policy 17 EXHIBIT A - 33 TX 6-033-330 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 POLS8250- Latin American Politics McCoy Democracy in Latin !America: Theories and Methods Oxford 1 (partial) Military Conflict and International Security additional 91-112 chapter] Religion, Morality, and Film Oxford Religion in America 18 EXHIBIT A - 34 pending Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall 2009 I Gender and Sherith Pankratz, Editor, Higher Education 478-489 40 298-324 SOCI8030Social Theory I Registration pending A00000236642 Sherith Pankratz, Editor, Higher Education Paperback HaTVey 32-37 60-67 Branches Readings 19 EXHIBIT A - 35 12 TX 6-895-280 Pankratz, Editor, Education Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 Challenges of the Third Age: Meaning and Purpose in Later Life TX 5-506-288 Oxford SOCI8116Sociology of Aging Perkins 29 First United Kingdom Maura Roessner, Editor, Medical Qualitative Research (2nd edition) SW8200- Evaluation and Technology Sara van Valkenburg, Contracts Manager Ohmer New Century Text TX 4-435-019 (3rd edition) 20 EXHIBIT A - 36 Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3 Fall2009 Sara van Valkenburg, Contracts Manager Publisher, to the Interpretation of Materials Researching materials (2007) WST8004Feminist Methodologies EPY7090Learning and the Learner Tal burt & Digital Sales 1 15-28 135-178 partial chapter) 200-219 Minds 58 39 Bossert, Editor, Medical pending Marx, Nietzsche, Freud 21 EXHIBIT A - 37