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 30

After debate, ABA House calls for publication of privately drafted stand...

2 of 4

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/after_strong_debate_house_call...

Currently, proponents of the measure say, these rules
are not accessible for free in any place but the
reading room of the Office of the Federal Register,
where researchers must make a written request for
an appointment. And paying for them could cost
anywhere from $40 to thousands of dollars,
Professor Ronald Levin (https://law.wustl.edu/faculty
/pages.aspx?id=279) of Washington University in St. Louis
told the House on Tuesday.
“This situation is antithetical to the notion of a fair
process,” said Levin, who moved the resolution in the
House on behalf of the Section of Administrative Law.
“Not to mention the ability of lawyers to do their jobs
for their clients.”
Levin noted that Resolution 112 is the result of
Ronald Levin. Photo by Tony monthslong collaboration—and ultimately,
compromises—by the six ABA sections coAvelar.
sponsoring
the measure. The task force working on the
matter also included representatives of the
standards development organization
community, he said. Not everyone who
participated is happy with the result, he said,
but the process was inclusive.
Nonetheless, the resolution was criticized
Tuesday morning as both going too far and
not going far enough. Among those opposed
was Beverly Quail (http://www.ballardspahr.com/people Beverly Quail. Photo by Tony
Avelar.
/attorneys/quail_beverly.aspx), a partner at Ballard
Spahr in Denver and a Colorado delegate to
the ABA. She said there’s no such thing as read-only publication online, thanks to
the ease of making electronic copies. And taxpayers should not foot the bill for
publishing standards of interest to very few people, she said.
“They whine about having to pay $9,000 if you want to get a copy of the nuclear
power plant [standards],” she said. “Who should pay for those plans? Us, the general
taxpayers, or the people who are going to build the nuclear power plant?”

10/29/19, 2:19 PM

After debate, ABA House calls for publication of privately drafted stand...

3 of 4

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/after_strong_debate_house_call...

Criticism that the resolution doesn’t go far enough came from Carl Malamud of
Public.Resource.Org (https://public.resource.org/), a website that seeks to make government
information more accessible. Malamud, an associate member of the ABA who
received special privileges of the floor, noted that the public would be prohibited by
this motion from printing, searching or copying the law, and would have to preregister
with a private vendor before reading the law.
“The promulgation of the edicts of
government is at the heart of the rule of law,”
he said. “Writing down the law is meaningless
if we cannot read it, but we must be permitted
to do more than simply read the law. We must
be permitted to speak the law, to share [it]
with fellow citizens.”
Speaking in support of the measure was Ellen
Flannery (https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/f/ellenflannery) of the Section of Science and
Carl Malamud. Photo by Tony
Technology Law, one of the sections that was
Avelar.
originally opposed to the measure but
ultimately co-sponsored it. As a member of
SciTech, she said, she appreciates the importance of protecting intellectual
property—but she’s also seen firsthand the difficulties created by limited access to
standards incorporated into public law. When she served on an Institute of Medicine
committee studying accessibility and affordability of hearing aids, she discovered that
it would have cost multiple thousands of dollars to access the required standards.
Flannery disagreed that the public doesn’t need access to the standards, which she
said affect a variety of consumer products. Because only a fraction of industry
standards are incorporated by reference into federal regulations, she said, the
financial effects may not be as broad as standards development organizations fear.
And if Congress does take up a bill in response to Resolution 112, she said, this
debate will be had again, and publicly.
After three speakers for the resolution and three against, Quail moved to postpone
the resolution indefinitely, which could have led to the effort’s quiet death. After
debate on postponement—Quail spoke for it and Susan Barbieri Montgomery
(https://www.northeastern.edu/law/faculty/directory/montgomery.html), a law professor at Northeastern
University of the Section of Intellectual Property Law against—House of Delegates
Chair Patricia Lee Refo called for a full count of votes on the House floor.
Postponement failed 141-206. The House then voted to call the question.

10/29/19, 2:19 PM

After debate, ABA House calls for publication of privately drafted stand...

4 of 4

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/after_strong_debate_house_call...

Scott Partridge (http://www.bakerbotts.com/people/p/partridge-scott-f), a
partner at Baker Botts in Houston, spoke in support of
calling the question, noting that “in 17 years in the House I
don’t think I’ve seen anything quite like this,” where
opposition to the measure came from both ends.
“What does the ABA do? It does what good lawyers do. It
looks for an appropriate compromise,” he said. “I urge you
vote for this resolution so that we are at the table to come
to an appropriate compromise.”
Though the opposition remained, the House did vote in
favor of Resolution 112.
Follow along with our full coverage of the 2016 ABA
Annual Meeting (http://www.abajournal.com/topic/annual+meeting).

Ellen Flannery. Photo
by Tony Avelar.

Give us feedback, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Copyright 2019 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.

10/29/19, 2:19 PM