Lansmont Corporation v. SPX Corporation et al
Filing
109
ORDER granting 92 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 100 Motion for Summary Judgment. Since this determination essentially resolves all remaining issues in this case, a judgment in favor of Lansmont which details the provisions of the injunction shall issue from the court in short order. The pretrial conference scheduled for 12/10/2012 and the ensuing trial dates are VACATED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/7/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
LANSMONT CORPORATION,
11
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
v.
SPX CORPORATION, et. al.
14
[Docket Item No(s). 92, 100]
Defendant(s).
15
16
/
Presently before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff
17
Lansmont Corporation (“Lansmont”) and Defendant SPX Corporation (“SPX). See Docket Item
18
Nos. 92, 100. Federal jurisdiction in this case arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Compl.,
19
Docket Item No. 1, at ¶ 13. Having carefully considered the moving, opposing and reply papers for
20
both motions as well as the arguments of counsel from the hearing on these matters, the court has
21
determined that Lansmont’s motion should be granted and SPX’s motion should be denied for
22
reasons described below.
23
24
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The basic facts are not in dispute. In the late 1990's, Lansmont and non-party Dactron, Inc.
25
(“Dactron”) partnered to develop new, state-of-the-art vibration controller technology and
26
accompanying software (the “technology”). Lansmont eventually purchased 80% of Dactron and
27
invested the capital necessary to finalize development of the technology.
28
1
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
In late 2001, Dactron was sold to United Dominion Industries, Inc. (“UDI”). As a condition
2
precedent to this sale, Lansmont agreed to transfer not only Dactron’s assets and its royalty-free
3
license to UDI, but to also transfer the technology. In return, UDI promised to grant-back to
4
Lansmont a license to the technology, as well as other business guarantees. The terms of this
5
agreement were set forth in an Assignment and Grant-Back License Agreement (the “AGBLA”)
6
such that : (1) UDI and its successors would supply Lansmont with vibration controller hardware
7
and software at a reduced price, (2) Lansmont would have the sole and exclusive distributorship in
8
the electro-dynamic vibration controller market, (3) Lansmont could inspect the records of UDI and
9
its successors upon 48 hours notice to ensure compliance with the contract, and (4) UDI and its
successors would provide Lansmont with all the relevant technological documentation necessary to
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
maintain a current interface.1
12
Soon after signing the AGBLA, SPX acquired UDI. As UDI’s successor, SPX accepted the
13
terms and conditions of the AGBLA and took advantage of its benefits. SPX operated the Dactron
14
business through its subsidiary, Ling Dynamic Systems (“LDS”).
15
On or about January 2, 2002, Lansmont agreed to enter into an amendment of the AGBLA
16
with LDS (as SPX’s representative) for a three-year term. The amendment granted LDS the right to
17
sell vibration control platforms subject to the AGBLA directly to end users and certain original
18
equipment manufacturers. Essentially, the amendment provided a carve-out to the market
19
exclusivity clause in the AGBLA. In exchange, Lansmont was to receive a substantial royalty fee
20
and an increased discount on its orders from LDS. To ensure compliance with the terms of the
21
amendment, LDS was also required to provide quarterly sales and revenue updates to Lansmont.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Key here is section 17.2 of the AGBLA:
The parties shall have the right to enter each other’s premises during
business hours on forty-eight (48) hours written notice for the purpose
of examining each other’s relevant books and records or to have such
books and records examined by its certified public accountant to
verify the parties’ fulfillment of their obligations under this
Agreement. All information obtained during such audit shall be
treated as “Confidential Information” in accordance with Section 11.
See Decl. of Joseph Driscoll, Docket Item No. 92-2, at Ex. 2.
2
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Lansmont and SPX continued to operate under the terms of the AGBLA as amended until
2
they expired in 2005. Thereafter, the parties returned to operating under the original terms of the
3
AGBLA.
4
At some point in 2008, SPX sold LDS to Brüel & Kjaer (“B&K”), a subsidiary of Defendant
5
Spectris, PLC (“Spectris”). After inquiry from SPX, it was determined that Spectris owed
6
approximately $80,000 to Lansmont under the AGBLA for activities that occurred prior to the sale
7
to Spectris. SPX informed Lansmont that LDS would pay the amount directly to Lansmont, but
8
disclaimed any further liability under the AGBLA.
9
Lansmont continued in its efforts to determine whether it was owed additional payments
under the AGBLA. On April 27, 2009, LDS, operating under the auspices of B&K, provided
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Lansmont with a limited amount of additional financial and sales data. From this limited disclosure
12
and its own independent investigation, Lansmont determined that LDS owed it more than $328,000.
13
Of this amount, Lansmont claims that approximately $287,000 was incurred before Spectris
14
purchased LDS from SPX. After learning there was an estimated $41,000 in overcharges
15
post-dating Spectris’ acquisition of LDS, B&K promptly paid Lansmont $41,000. Lansmont also
16
attempted to obtain an inspection of SPX’s records as provided in the AGBLA and has alleged that
17
SPX denied the request.
18
19
20
21
Whether Lansmont is entitled to an inspection of SPX’s records according to the relevant
provision of the AGBLA is now the only remaining subject of this action filed December 23, 2010.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for summary judgment should be granted if “there is no genuine dispute as to any
22
material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
23
Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). The moving party bears the initial
24
burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the
25
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the
26
absence of a triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
27
If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party
28
3
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
to go beyond the pleadings and designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
2
trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The court must regard as true the opposing
3
party’s evidence, if supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
4
However, the mere suggestion that facts are in controversy, as well as conclusory or speculative
5
testimony in affidavits and moving papers, is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. See
6
Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). Instead, the non-moving
7
party must come forward with admissible evidence to satisfy the burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see
8
also Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990).
9
A genuine issue for trial exists if the non-moving party presents evidence from which a
reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that party, could resolve the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
material issue in his or her favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986);
12
Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1134-36 (9th Cir. 1991). Conversely, summary judgment must
13
be granted where a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
14
essential to that party’s case, on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477
15
U.S. at 322.
16
17
III.
DISCUSSION
Lansmont moves for summary judgment on the sole remaining cause of action for breach of
18
contract. In particular, Lansmont seeks an order for specific performance requiring SPX to allow an
19
inspection pursuant to Section 17.2 of the AGBLA. For its part, SPX opposes Lansmont’s motion
20
but also moves for summary judgment in its favor should the court find that Lansmont cannot meet
21
its burden to show breach of contract or entitlement to specific performance.
22
These motions primarily turn on whether Lansmont has proven the elements of its breach of
23
contract claim. The parties agree that the AGBLA is governed by California law. In California, a
24
claim for breach of contract requires: “(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or
25
excuse of nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the
26
breach.” CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1239 (2008).
27
Two of these elements need little discussion. As to the first element requiring the existence
28
4
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
of a contract, SPX concedes in its opposition to this motion that the AGBLA is an existing, valid
2
contract. With regard to fourth element requiring Lansmont to prove its damages, the parties are in
3
agreement that the AGBLA allows the non-breaching party with a right to seek the remedy of
4
specific performance and precludes the breaching party from raising a lack of irreparable harm as a
5
defense.2 Thus, there is no question that specific performance is the proper remedy should
6
Lansmont prevail.
7
The second and third elements of a breach of contract claim, however, are subject to debate
8
here. In order to meet their burden, Lansmont must demonstrate there is no dispute of material fact
9
as to: (1) whether it performed its obligations according to Section 17.2 of the AGBLA and (2)
whether SPX breached its duties to allow an inspection. These two elements are discussed below.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
A.
12
Section 17.2 requires the party requesting an inspection to provide “written notice” at least
Whether Lansmont Performed
13
48 hours in advance of its intent to conduct a review. In arguing that it complied with its obligations
14
under this provision, Lansmont contends it “made multiple inspection demands pursuant to its
15
rights.” Specifically, Lansmont cites to sixteen emails between its directors - Chief Executive
16
Officer Joe Driscoll (“Driscoll”) and Chief Financial Officer Patti Monahan - and various
17
individuals from SPX, LDS and B&K in support of its claim that it requested an inspection “no less
18
than 15 times between October 2008 and April 2010.”
19
For its part, SPX argues that only one of the e-mails cited by Lansmont constitutes a proper
20
request under section 17.2 because the other e-mails are either not specific enough to invoke the
21
inspection rights or were not directed to SPX as the proper recipient.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Section 7.1 of the AGBLA states, in pertinent part:
If any party should default in its obligations under this Agreement,
each party agrees that the non-defaulting party or parties . . . may sue
in equity for specific performance, and the parties each expressly
waive the defense that a remedy in damages will be adequate. The
parties agree that a breach of this Agreement shall entitle the injured
party to injunctive relief without bond or other security, which may
include but shall not be limited to immediate restraining order.
See Driscoll Decl., at Ex. 2.
5
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
“A bedrock principle of California contract law is that ‘[h]e who seeks to enforce a contract
2
must show that he has complied with the conditions and agreements of the contract on his part to be
3
performed.’” Brown v. Dillard’s, Inc., 430 F.3d 1004, 1006 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pry Corp. of
4
Am. v. Leach, 177 Cal. App. 2d 632 (1960)). “A condition precedent is an act which must be
5
performed or an uncertain event which must happen before the promisor’s duty of performance
6
arises.” Sosin v. Richardson, 210 Cal. App. 2d 258, 264 (1963).
7
As indicated above, the terms of section 17.2 contain a condition precedent insomuch as the
8
party seeking an inspection must make a request before the responding party is obligated to allow
9
the inspection. Here, the evidence demonstrates that Lansmont met its obligation to perform under
the AGBLA and satisfied the condition precedent to SPX’s performance, particularly since the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
parties agree that the e-mail dated March 22, 2010, between Driscoll and Robert Spence (“Spence”)
12
from SPX constitutes a sufficient request according to the operative terms. See Driscoll Decl., at
13
Ex. 46. Indeed, Driscoll’s e-mail references section 17.2 and requests a review according to that
14
provision. Thus, the court concurs that the March 22nd e-mail constitutes performance by
15
Lansmont.3
16
Based on the one compliant e-mail, the court finds there is no genuine factual dispute as to
17
the second element of a cause of action for breach of contract. This issue is determined in favor of
18
Lansmont.
19
B.
20
For this element, Lansmont argues that SPX breached the AGBLA by refusing to allow an
21
inspection after it received a sufficient request under section 17.2. The court begins by examining
22
whether Lansmont has met its initial burden to show the alleged breach. In the most basic sense,
23
“[a] breach of contract ordinarily occurs upon the promisor’s failure to render the promised
24
performance.” McCaskey v. Cal. State Auto. Assn., 189 Cal. App. 4th 947, 958 (2010). As
Whether SPX Breached
25
26
27
28
3
The court does note, however, that the March 22nd e-mail is the only one which adequately
demonstrates Lansmont’s performance according to the terms of 17.2. In that regard, the court
agrees with SPX that the other e-mails relied upon by Lansmont are deficient and did not satisfy the
condition on which SPX’s performance is conditioned.
6
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
referenced above, section 17.2 required SPX to undertake a particular performance once it received
2
Lansmont’s compliant inspection request. Per the plain language of the AGBLA, Lansmont had the
3
“right to enter [SPX’s] premises” in order to examine “relevant books and records.” Here, it is
4
undisputed that SPX did not allow an inspection of its own records on its own premises after the
5
March 22nd e-mail, regardless of its reasons for not doing so. As such, Lansmont has made a basic
6
showing that SPX breached section 17.2 once it satisfied the condition precedent to SPX’s
7
performance.
8
9
But that does not end the matter because the court must address SPX’s arguments in
opposition to determine whether it has demonstrated a disputed material fact. SPX first contends
that no breach occurred because it was not in possession of any documents responsive to Lansmont’s
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
inspection request. Thus, according to SPX, it could not allow an inspection of “relevant books and
12
records” at its facility because those records were transferred to Spectris and B&K along with LDS.
13
This argument fails, however, because the same evidence that SPX relies on to support its
14
non-breach claim also establishes that SPX was in possession of responsive documents. Indeed,
15
SPX’s designated witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), Kelley A. Clement
16
(“Clement”), initially testified that the responsive records were not with SPX, but then later revealed
17
during the same deposition that certain cost data relevant to Lansmont’s inspection request was
18
stored at SPX. See Dep. of Kelly A. Clement, Docket Item Nos. 92-1, 100, at 24:20-25:8; 96:2-
19
99:7. To the extent Clement’s deposition testimony is internally inconsistent, it does not itself create
20
a dispute of material fact because the former statement is rejected as self-serving, vague and
21
contrary to the remaining evidence. Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir. 1996)
22
(affirming district court’s decision to discount uncorroborated, contradictory and self-serving
23
deposition testimony when ruling on motion for summary judgment). Indeed, when Clement’s more
24
specific testimony about the costs data retained at SPX is coupled with the other relevant evidence,
25
including Spence’s e-mail to Driscoll dated January 15, 2010, as well as Spence’s deposition
26
testimony, it is apparent that SPX is in possession of at least some relevant documents in some form.
27
See Driscoll Decl., at Ex. 42; see also Dep. of Robert M. Spence, Docket Item No. 92-1, at 117:19-
28
7
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
119:18. If it was not, Spence could not have offered the statement about cost data contained in the
2
January 15th email. See Driscoll Decl., at Ex. 42 (“SPX’s fundamental position with regard to the
3
claim is that our hard data in hand from 2001 . . . .”).4
4
SPX also contends, presumably as an alternative to the “no records” argument, that it
5
actually complied with Lansmont’s inspection request by facilitating access to LDS documents
6
through Spectris. This argument is no longer a viable one, however, considering the determination
7
that SPX was in possession of relevant documents that could have been inspected at its facility
8
according to section 17.2. In any event, the court would still find that SPX’s apparent alternative
9
performance did not constitute compliance with its obligation under the AGBLA even if it did not
have responsive documents. This is because the AGBLA does not allow for that. “[W]here a
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
contract has been reduced to writing, the instrument measures the rights, duties and obligations of
12
the parties.” Jones v. Pollock, 34 Cal. 2d 863, 866 (1950). Since the contract at issue is clear as to
13
what it requires, “it is not the province of a court to make a new one, or to re-write or alter by
14
construction what has been agreed upon.” Barker v. Sherman, 123 Cal. App. 2d 810, 812 (1954).
15
By citing to some conduct which differs than what was required by the AGBLA and requesting the
16
court accept it as full performance, SPX is requesting the court do just that.
17
The court finds that Lansmont has met its burden to show breach of the AGBLA by SPX.
18
That being the case, Lansmont is entitled to summary judgment on it cause of action for breach of
19
contract.
20
C.
Specific Performance and Injunctive Relief
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
The court disagrees with SPX insofar as it believes that any inspection undertaken pursuant
to section 17.2 is somehow limited in scope by the documents referenced in Driscoll’s March 22nd
e-mail. The language of Section 17.2 does not provide for such a limitation or require the requesting
party to define the bounds of the inspection in that manner; it allows for the parties to inspect
“relevant books and records . . . to verify the parties’ fulfillment of their obligations under this
Agreement.” The term “relevant,” which is the only word which could possibly impose some
limitation, was not specially defined in the AGBLA and therefore must be interpreted in its
“ordinary and popular sense.” Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., 44 Cal. 4th 541, 552 (2008).
As defined in the dictionary, the word “relevant” means “having significant and demonstrable
bearing on the matter at hand.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003). This
broad definition certainly encompasses the 2001 documents referenced by Clement in his deposition
and Spence in his January 15th email.
8
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
2
Pursuant to the AGBLA, Lansmont seeks specific performance and an injunction as a
remedy for SPX’s breach. Lansmont is entitled to this relief.
3
“[S]pecific performance is a remedy for breach of contract, a cause of action which requires
4
proof the contract was breached.” Golden West Baseball Co. v. City of Anaheim, 25 Cal. App. 4th
5
11, 49 (1994). “To obtain specific performance after a breach of contract, a plaintiff must generally
6
show: ‘(1) the inadequacy of his legal remedy; (2) an underlying contract that is both reasonable and
7
supported by adequate consideration; (3) the existence of a mutuality of remedies; (4) contractual
8
terms which are sufficiently definite to enable the court to know what it is to enforce; and (5) a
9
substantial similarity of the requested performance to that promised in the contract.’” Real Estate
Analytics, LLC v. Vallas, 160 Cal. App. 4th 463, 472 (2008) (quoting Tamarind Lithography
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Workshop, Inc. v. Sanders, 143 Cal. App. 3d 571, 575 (1983)).
12
“According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent
13
injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must
14
demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as
15
monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of
16
hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the
17
public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange,
18
L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 392 (2006).
19
Much of Lansmont’s burden to obtain specific performance and an injunction is satisfied
20
either by the parties’ agreement or by findings already made in this order. On the elements of
21
specific performance, that the AGBLA is a valid contract is not in dispute. Section 7.1 provides that
22
the non-breaching party may sue for specific performance and the parties expressly waived the
23
defense that a remedy in damages will be adequate. Mutuality of remedies is satisfied based on the
24
plain terms of the contract and the specificity of contract terms is not at issue. Moreover, the
25
performance sought by Lansmont is nothing more than what the terms of the AGBLA provide.5
26
27
28
5
SPX has argued that specific performance cannot be ordered here since it does not have
responsive documents. While it is true that “[a]n agreement to perform an act which the party has
not power lawfully to perform when required to do so” cannot be specifically enforced (Cal. Civ.
9
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
As far as an injunction goes, section 7.1 entitles the non-breaching party to injunctive relief
2
and SPX concedes that this provisions includes a waiver of any argument it may have against the
3
presence of irreparable harm. And in light of Lansmont’s entitlement to summary judgment on the
4
breach of contract, the injunction is appropriate.
5
6
In short, Lansmont has demonstrated through its motion that a judgment of specific
performance and the issuance of an injunction should issue.
7
IV.
ORDER
GRANTED. SPX’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Item No. 100) is DENIED. Since this
10
determination essentially resolves all remaining issues in this case, a judgment in favor of Lansmont
11
For the Northern District of California
Based on the foregoing, Lansmont’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Item No. 92) is
9
United States District Court
8
which details the provisions of the injunction shall issue from the court in short order. The pretrial
12
conference scheduled for December 10, 2012, and the ensuing trial dates are VACATED.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: December 7, 2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Code § 3390), it is also true that the inability must exist when performance is required by the court
rather than at the time the contract is made. See Stevens Group Fund IV v. Sobrato Dev. Co., 1 Cal.
App. 4th 886, 894 (1991). Also, inability to perform must be complete. See Milkes v. Smith, 91 Cal.
App. 2d 79, 81-82 (1949). If performance is at all possible, the court may order partial performance.
Id. Since the court has determined SPX to be in possession of some documents upon which an
inspection can occur, this argument fails.
28
10
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?