AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.

Filing 204

LARGE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT(S) to Public Resource's Second Motion for Summary Judgment by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. 202 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC., 203 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) filed by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Public Resources Statement of Disputed Facts, # 2 Public Resources Evidentiary Objections, # 3 Public Resources Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Declaration Carl Malamud, # 5 Declaration Matthew Becker, # 6 Consolidated Index of Exhibits, # 7 Exhibit 1, # 8 Exhibit 2, # 9 Exhibit 3, # 10 Exhibit 4, # 11 Exhibit 5, # 12 Exhibit 6, # 13 Exhibit 7, # 14 Exhibit 8, # 15 Exhibit 9, # 16 Exhibit 10, # 17 Exhibit 11, # 18 Exhibit 12, # 19 Exhibit 13, # 20 Exhibit 14, # 21 Exhibit 15, # 22 Exhibit 16, # 23 Exhibit 17, # 24 Exhibit 18, # 25 Exhibit 19, # 26 Exhibit 20, # 27 Exhibit 21, # 28 Exhibit 22, # 29 Exhibit 23, # 30 Exhibit 24, # 31 Exhibit 25, # 32 Exhibit 26, # 33 Exhibit 27, # 34 Exhibit 28, # 35 Exhibit 29, # 36 Exhibit 30, # 37 Exhibit 31, # 38 Exhibit 32, # 39 Exhibit 33, # 40 Exhibit 34, # 41 Exhibit 35, # 42 Exhibit 36, # 43 Exhibit 37, # 44 Exhibit 38, # 45 Exhibit 39, # 46 Exhibit 40, # 47 Exhibit 41, # 48 Exhibit 42, # 49 Exhibit 43, # 50 Exhibit 44, # 51 Exhibit 45, # 52 Exhibit 46, # 53 Exhibit 47, # 54 Exhibit 48, # 55 Exhibit 49, # 56 Exhibit 50, # 57 Exhibit 51, # 58 Exhibit 52, # 59 Exhibit 53, # 60 Exhibit 54, # 61 Exhibit 55, # 62 Exhibit 56, # 63 Exhibit 57, # 64 Exhibit 58, # 65 Exhibit 59, # 66 Exhibit 60, # 67 Exhibit 61, # 68 Exhibit 62, # 69 Exhibit 63, # 70 Exhibit 64, # 71 Exhibit 65, # 72 Exhibit 66, # 73 Exhibit 67, # 74 Exhibit 68, # 75 Exhibit 69, # 76 Exhibit 70, # 77 Exhibit 71, # 78 Exhibit 72, # 79 Exhibit 73, # 80 Exhibit 74, # 81 Exhibit 75, # 82 Exhibit 76, # 83 Exhibit 77, # 84 Exhibit 78, # 85 Exhibit 79, # 86 Exhibit 80, # 87 Exhibit 81, # 88 Exhibit 82, # 89 Exhibit 83, # 90 Exhibit 84, # 91 Exhibit 85, # 92 Exhibit 86, # 93 Exhibit 87, # 94 Exhibit 88, # 95 Exhibit 89, # 96 Exhibit 90, # 97 Exhibit 91, # 98 Exhibit 92, # 99 Exhibit 93, # 100 Exhibit 94, # 101 Exhibit 95, # 102 Exhibit 96, # 103 Exhibit 97, # 104 Certificate of Service)(Bridges, Andrew)

EXHIBIT 20

AN APPEAL TO THE COURT
BEFORE THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD H. CHAMBERS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
JUNE 23, 2010, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Chief Judge Kozinski and Honorable Members of the
Court,
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
today.
My name is Carl Malamud, and I am President of
Public.Resource.Org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation
with a charter of making government more widely
available.
We were responsible for placing a 50-year archive of
decisions from the Court of Appeals on the Internet for use
at no charge and with no restrictions on use, an archive
which we then supplemented with 281 volumes of the first
series of the Federal Reporter, as well as the Federal
Cases.
We were also responsible for conducting audits of
Court of Appeals opinions and PACER documents for
violations of the privacy rules of the Judicial Conference.
Since January, we have worked with co-convenors at
major law schools around the country—including Stanford,
Berkeley, Harvard, and Yale—to conduct a series of 15
workshops under the theme of “Law.Gov.”
Law.Gov is an idea, an idea that the primary legal
materials of the United States could be made more readily
available.

CARL MALAMUD
8

9

10

11

12

13

The basic proposition we have examined is bulk access
via the Internet to primary legal materials at all levels of
government and across all branches.
This is not about the creation of a single repository or
web site, it is about the standards governmental
institutions should individually strive for, allowing forprofit and non-profit uses to thrive, without artificial
barriers to access.
Law.Gov has been strictly nonpartisan. The chief
executives of both the Federalist Society and the American
Constitution Society have participated in Law.Gov
workshops. This open process has included strong
participation from industry, including the CEOs of
LexisNexis, Fastcase, and Justia.
This national conversation has also had strong
participation from government, including the Law
Librarian of Congress, the Archivist of the United States,
the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the
United States, White House officials and members of
Congress, and officials from all three branches of state
governments.
Perhaps most importantly, this dialogue has had the
enthusiastic backing of law librarians across the country,
with 195 librarians volunteering to help conduct a National
Inventory of Legal Materials and 5 past presidents of the
American Association of Law Libraries participating in the
workshops.
The Law.Gov workshops concluded last week at the
Harvard Law School, where we reached consensus upon 10

AN APPEAL TO THE COURT

14

15

16

17

18

19

basic principles that will form the basis for a report to be
issued this fall.
Officials from the Executive and Legislative branches
have requested a copy of this report, and we would be
pleased to offer a copy to you if it should please the Court.
On behalf of Public.Resource.Org, in cooperation with
my colleagues at the Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, and
Cornell Law Schools, as well as other locations, I would like
to make a second offer to the Court, and that is to furnish to
you late this year or early next year with a disk drive.
The disk drive would contain the complete opinions of
this Court from 1891 on, as well as all or most of the briefs
and other relevant information.
Technically speaking, the opinions would be properly
formatted in HTML with an accompanying PDF version,
and all files would include proper metadata and other
information conforming to standards and
recommendations from groups such as the American Bar
Association and the American Association of Law
Libraries.
Working with law students and librarians, we would
perform an extensive audit of the opinions to verify that
the electronic and paper versions match.
The Court would be under no obligation to do anything
with this disk drive, but if the Court is satisfied with the
information furnished, you could consider digitally signing
the data and perhaps offering the complete archive on the
Court’s web site.

CARL MALAMUD
20

I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to
appear before you, and would be pleased to answer any
questions.