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

Filing 46

Memorandum in opposition to re #41 MOTION to Compel Discovery Plaintiff National Fire Protection Association, Inc.'s Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery filed by NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Christian Dubay In Support of, #2 Declaration Dennis Berry In Support of)(Klaus, Kelly)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING
AND MATERIALS d/b/a/ ASTM
INTERNATIONAL;
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
ASSOCIATION, INC.; and
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING,
REFRIGERATING, AND AIR
CONDITIONING ENGINEERS,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01215-TSC

Plaintiffs/
Counter-Defendants,
v.
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.,
Defendant/
Counter-Plaintiff.
PLAINTIFF NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II.

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1

III.

ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
A.

Public Resource Failed to Comply with the Local Rules, Which Are
Designed to Encourage Parties to Attempt to Resolve Their Discovery
Disputes Before Burdening the Court. .....................................................................3

B.

In the Alternative, Public Resource’s Motion Should be Denied on the
Merits .......................................................................................................................4
1.
2.

Collecting Each Individual Assignment of Rights Agreement
Would be Unduly Burdensome and Serve No Purpose in this
Litigation ......................................................................................................6

3.

NFPA Has Agreed to Produce Appropriate Information About its
Finances .......................................................................................................8

4.

The Court Should Permit NFPA to Exclude Documents Relating to
this Litigation From Production ...................................................................8

5.

Information Regarding Legal Authorities that Incorporate NFPA’s
Standards is Just As Available to Public Resource as to NFPA ................10

6.
IV.

Collecting Licensing Agreements Beyond what NFPA Has
Already Agreed to Produce Would be Unduly Burdensome .......................4

NFPA’s ROPs and ROCs Fully Address Public Resource’s
Requests .....................................................................................................10

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................12

(i)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
FEDERAL CASES
Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC,
06 CV 5936 KMW, 2011 WL 813481 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2011) .............................................9
Ellipso, Inc. v. Mann,
460 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2006) .............................................................................................4
U.S. ex rel. K & R Ltd. P'ship v. Massachusetts Hous. Fin. Agency
456 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006) ............................................................................................4
Harris v. Koenig,
271 F.R.D. 356 (D.D.C. 2010)...................................................................................................7
In re Imperial Corp. of Am.,
174 F.R.D. 475 (S.D. Cal. 1997) ...............................................................................................9
Law Enforcement Training & Research Assocs. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
90-15482, 1991 WL 172416 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 1991) ................................................................7
S.E.C. v. LovesLines Overseas Mgmt., Ltd.,
MISC. 04-302RWRAK, 2007 WL 581909, (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2007). .......................................9
S.E.C. v. Thrasher,
92 CIV. 6987 (JFK), 1996 WL 125661 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 1996) ...........................................8
White v. U.S. Catholic Conference
CIV.A.97-1253TAF 1998 WL 429842 (D.D.C. May 22, 1998) ...............................................7
FEDERAL RULES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)....................................................................................................................5
LOCAL RULE
7(m) ..................................................................................................................................................3

(ii)

I.

INTRODUCTION
Defendant Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (“Public Resource”) has rushed into court with a

motion to compel that is premature and in clear violation of this Court’s rules. For that reason
alone, the motion should be denied. The parties have been negotiating over the scope and burden
of each other’s discovery requests, a process that was ongoing when Public Resource filed the
present motion without any prior notice to Plaintiff National Fire Protection Association, Inc.
(“NFPA”). The Court’s rules sensibly forbid this ambush strategy, to avoid burdening the Court
and the parties with motion practice until it is clear that common ground cannot be reached. In
an additional violation of the Court’s rules, Public Resource failed to submit a statement that the
required discussion with NFPA occurred prior to the filing of this motion—a statement it could
not make, since such discussion never occurred.
Even if this Court were inclined to disregard Public Resource’s failure to comply with the
Court’s rules, its motion should be denied on the merits. Public Resource’s discovery requests
are overbroad and seek to impose onerous discovery burdens on NFPA without any reasonable
expectation that they will lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. The burden
outweighs any potential benefit.1
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are three not-for-profit organizations that develop private-sector standards to

advance public safety, ensure compatibility across products and services, facilitate training, and
spur innovation. Dkt. 1 ¶ 1. For example, NFPA develops the National Electrical Code, which
helps ensure that electrical systems are installed safely and in a consistent manner. The
standards developed by Plaintiffs are original works protected from infringement under the

1

NFPA understands that co-Plaintiffs will also be filing response briefs in opposition to Public Resource’s motion to
compel, and NFPA respectfully joins in those oppositions.

1

Copyright Act. Government entities frequently incorporate these private standards by reference
in statutes, regulations, or ordinances. Id. The process of developing standards is costly, and
Plaintiffs rely on revenues from the sales and licensing of their copyrighted standards to help
underwrite those costs. Id. ¶ 136. Plaintiffs brought this copyright and trademark action to stop
Defendant Public Resource from copying Plaintiffs’ copyrighted standards, posting the standards
in their entirety on its public website, and encouraging the public to disregard Plaintiffs’
copyrights and copy, distribute, and create derivative works of the standards. Id. ¶ 3.
The parties have been engaged in discovery for the last several months. The parties had
extensive telephonic meet-and-confers, on April 21 and May 7, 2014. On May 23, NFPA
responded to several of Public Resource’s concerns regarding NFPA’s discovery responses and
proposed reasonable accommodations with respect to many of them. Notwithstanding Public
Resource’s sudden rush into Court now, for several months Public Resource sat silent. Having
received no response from Public Resource, on August 22 NFPA sent a further letter to Public
Resource noting that NFPA could not complete its document collection and production efforts
until Public Resource responded to its May 23 letter; NFPA requested a response from Public
Resource within two weeks, or by September 5. Declaration of Kathleen Lu (Dkt. 41-2) (“Lu
Decl.”), Ex. 12. On September 5, Public Resource sent a letter in response, which responded to
NFPA’s proposals by accepting some portions of them and making counter-proposals on others.
Lu Decl. Ex. 14. Neither this letter nor any previous communication from Public Resource
makes any mention of any potential motion. Id. Less than two weeks later on September 15—
while NFPA was preparing its response to Public Resource’s letter, including potential areas of
further compromise—Public Resource filed this motion to compel.

2

Before filing this opposition, Plaintiffs emailed Public Resource to notify it of its failure
to comply with the Local Rules, asking Public Resource to withdraw its motion and offering to
meet and confer on the issues raised by the motion. Declaration of M. Andrew Zee Ex. 2.
Public Resource declined to withdraw its motion, instead insisting that Plaintiffs either agree not
to oppose the motion or identify the issues which they believed the parties could narrow. Id. In
response, Plaintiffs again explained that they believed the parties could reach resolution on the
issues raised by the motion, and asking Public Resource to withdraw its motion and meet and
confer on these issues, as required by the Local Rules. Id. Public Resource declined this further
invitation. Id.
III.

ARGUMENT
A.

Public Resource Failed to Comply with the Local Rules, Which Are Designed
to Encourage Parties to Attempt to Resolve Their Discovery Disputes Before
Burdening the Court.

The Local Rules require that, “[b]efore filing any nondispositive motion in a civil action,
counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel in a good-faith effort to
determine whether there is any opposition to the relief sought and, if there is, to narrow the areas
of disagreement.” Local Rule 7(m). The same rule additionally requires a party to “include in
its motion a statement that the required discussion occurred, and a statement as to whether the
motion is opposed.” Id.
Public Resource has complied with neither of these requirements. As noted, the parties
have met and conferred and exchanged several discovery letters over the last several months.
NFPA consistently expressed its desire to “reach[] amicable resolutions on the range of
discovery issues that will allow the parties to litigate this action,” and made a number of
compromise proposals to that end. Lu Decl. Ex. 12, at 8. The latest discovery communication
from Public Resource to NFPA was a letter on September 5, 2014, sent two weeks after NFPA
3

provided its own proposals, in which Public Resource accepted some portions of them and made
counter-proposals on others. Lu Decl. Ex. 14. Less than two weeks later, while NFPA was in
the process of formulating its responses and further areas of compromise, Public Resource filed
this motion. Neither its September 5 letter nor any previous communication from Public
Resource makes any mention of any potential motion. Id.
Such action is plainly insufficient to comply with the Local Rule. “Because the Rule
seeks to promote actual resolution of nondispositive disputes, its focus is on substance, not form,
and thus ‘[t]he obligation to confer may not be satisfied by perfunctory action, but requires a
good faith effort to resolve the nondispositive disputes that occur in the course of litigation.’”
U.S. ex rel. K & R Ltd. P'ship v. Massachusetts Hous. Fin. Agency, 456 F. Supp. 2d 46, 52
(D.D.C. 2006) (quoting United States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America,
235 F.R.D. 521, 529 (D.D.C. 2006)). Dismissal of this motion will permit the parties to continue
to discuss their differences over the discovery issues in the case and to appropriately narrow the
range of disagreement, should any such disagreement ultimately need to be presented to the
Court. See, e.g., Ellipso, Inc. v. Mann, 460 F. Supp. 2d 99, 102 (D.D.C. 2006) (“The purpose of
the Local Rule is to promote the resolution of as many litigation disputes as possible without
court intervention, or at least to force the parties to narrow the issues that must be brought to the
court. … If a party files a nondispositive motion without certifying its compliance with Rule
7(m), the motion will be denied.”).
B.

In the Alternative, Public Resource’s Motion Should be Denied on the Merits
1.

Collecting Licensing Agreements Beyond what NFPA Has Already
Agreed to Produce Would be Unduly Burdensome

Public Resource’s first request is that NFPA produce “[a]ll documents constituting,
comprising, or concerning licenses with respect to any Work-At-Issue.” Mot. 4. Public
4

Resource misrepresents the position that NFPA has taken regarding this request. NFPA has
agreed to conduct a reasonable search and produce the current version of any license agreements
relating to the standards at issue contained in NFPA’s contracts database, as well as any
responsive documents in NFPA’s SharePoint database of copyright permission letters. Lu Decl.
Ex. 12, at 3. As explained in the declaration of Dennis Berry that accompanies this opposition, it
would be unduly burdensome for NFPA to collect any additional documents beyond the
permissions and licenses contained in its primary databases. Declaration of Dennis J. Berry
(“Berry Decl.”) ¶¶ 4, 7. Older versions of licenses and copyright permissions are not centrally
stored or filed, and in many cases are not stored electronically at all; retrieving these documents
would impose a significant burden. Id.
Nor would such an effort serve any purpose in this case. There is no reason why Public
Resource would need NFPA to take extraordinary measures to identify and produce outdated
licenses and years-old copyright permissions. In its motion, Public Resource contends that
license agreements are relevant to the question of how much revenue NFPA receives from
licensing its standards, and to the question of whether NFPA is engaged in any licensing that
violates public policy. Mot. 5. These issues relate to NFPA’s current licensing practices, not to
long-expired licensing practices. The current versions of license agreements and recent
copyright permissions are the only documents that are relevant to the issues identified by Public
Resource in its motion. Public Resource has never responded to NFPA’s proposal on this issue,
nor has Public Resource explained why the production actually offered by NFPA would be
insufficient. To the extent that Public Resource seeks additional discovery beyond the
reasonable approach outlined by NFPA, its motion should be denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2) (“[T]he court must limit the … extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules …

5

if it determines that … the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs it likely
benefit.”). At a minimum, the Court should permit the parties to continue to meet and confer on
this issue to determine whether a reasonable compromise can be reached.
2.

Collecting Each Individual Assignment of Rights Agreement Would
be Unduly Burdensome and Serve No Purpose in this Litigation

Public Resource seeks agreements between NFPA and persons who participated in the
standards process. As NFPA has consistently explained to Public Resource, NFPA requires all
persons who participate in the standards process to fill out NFPA’s standard form assigning all
rights in the final work to NFPA. Lu Decl. Ex. 12, at 10. As explained in the Declaration of
Christian Dubay that accompanies this opposition, NFPA does not accept comments or
contributions without receiving an assignment of rights from the contributor. Declaration of
Christian Dubay (“Dubay Decl.”) ¶ 3. The assignment of rights is invariably executed via the
standard form agreement that NFPA has agreed to produce, with extremely isolated exceptions.
Id. ¶ 4. And NFPA’s Reports on Proposals (or “ROPs), and Reports on Comments (or “ROCs”),
which NFPA already has produced, identify the names of all individuals who submit comments
and proposals after executing the standard-form assignment of rights. Lu Decl. Ex. 12, at 10.
Public Resource’s motion is not entirely clear, but it appears to contemplate the
production of every single executed assignment form. Such production would be extremely
burdensome and would serve no purpose in this litigation. Because NFPA collects assignments
of rights on standard forms, and does not accept contributions without accompanying
assignments of rights, production of the standard form is sufficient to enable Public Resource to
assert any claims or defenses based on the effectiveness of this assignment. It is unreasonable
for Public Resource to insist that NFPA must produce the actual copies of the thousands of
individual forms, many of which are not stored electronically but are held in a physical location.
6

Dubay Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. These documents would be extremely burdensome to collect, review, and
produce—and such production would serve no purpose because the documents are all identical.2
Moreover, Public Resource offers only speculation to justify this request, suggesting
without any basis that it seeks to investigate “any defects that may be present in an individual
assignment.” Mot. 7. This is a fishing expedition of the sort that courts routinely deny. See,
e.g., Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 369 (D.D.C. 2010) (denying motion to compel where
parties sought “a large amount of information based on the theoretical foundation that there is a
possibility that they might find a conflict of interest”). This request is especially unreasonable
because Public Resource does not claim that any purported author has objected to NFPA’s
assertion of copyright in the works at issue (nor, of course, does Public Resource itself claim to
be the author of the works at issue). Under these circumstances, Public Resource lacks any
good-faith basis to assert lack of copyright ownership as a third-party defense on behalf of others
who have not objected to NFPA’s copyrights. Cf. Law Enforcement Training & Research
Assocs. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 90-15482, 1991 WL 172416, at *1 (9th Cir. Sept. 4,
1991) (noting that courts should give extra scrutiny to a copyright defendant’s claim that the
plaintiff lacks copyright ownership when this claim is invoked “solely as a third party defense
and the asserted copyright holder has knowingly acquiesced to the plaintiff's commercial use of
the work”). Public Resource’s motion should be denied.

2

If the Court were to decide that Public Resource is entitled to inspect each and every assignment of rights, NFPA
would propose that it make the physical records available for Public Resource’s inspection, rather than using the
parties’ resources to produce copies of these materials. See White v. U.S. Catholic Conference, CIV.A.971253TAF/JMF, 1998 WL 429842, at *4 (D.D.C. May 22, 1998) (“Fed. R. Civ .P. 34 requires only that the
documents be made available for inspection and copying.”).

7

3.

NFPA Has Agreed to Produce Appropriate Information About its
Finances

Public Resource requests documents “sufficient to identify all Contributions in support of
the Standards Process of each Work-At-Issue.” Mot. 7. Again, Public Resource misrepresents
NFPA’s position on this topic, inaccurately asserting that NFPA “has agreed to produce only
‘Reports on Proposals,’ or ‘ROPs’, and ‘Reports on Comments’, or ‘ROCs’, neither of which
provide any information relating to financial contributions.” Mot. 9. In the very letter that
Public Resource cites for this assertion, NFPA actually said that it “will produce its annual, yearend financial reports for the past five years.” Lu Decl. Ex. 6, at 12. These financial statements
are more than adequate to provide the information sought by Public Resource through this
discovery request, such as the fact that NFPA depends heavily on licensing revenue from its
copyrighted works at issue in this case.
As NFPA further noted in its Objections to Public Resource’s Request for Production, the
language of Public Resource’s request is vague and overly broad. Id. The definition of
Contributions could be interpreted to cover every expenditure made in connection with the
process of developing 22 lengthy copyrighted works. There is no need for such exhaustive
review of the day-to-day financial operations of NFPA—the financial statements will provide
Public Resource with ample information regarding the sources of NFPA’s overall revenues and
expenses, and Public Resource will be free to request additional, more specific information
should it identify particular areas where it believes more information is necessary. The motion
should be denied with respect to this request.
4.

The Court Should Permit NFPA to Exclude Documents Relating to
this Litigation From Production

Public Resource seeks documents “relating to this litigation or the possibility of taking
legal action against Public Resource or its principal Carl Malamud.” Mot. 9. NFPA has agreed
8

to conduct a reasonable search for documents referring to Public Resource or to Mr. Malamud,
but has proposed excluding documents related to this lawsuit or the possibility of bringing this
lawsuit from its production. Given that such documents are overwhelmingly privileged, courts
routinely permit parties to exclude from production entire categories of documents that were
prepared during litigation or in anticipation of litigation. See, e.g., Arista Records LLC v. Lime
Grp. LLC, 06 CV 5936 KMW, 2011 WL 813481, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2011) (imposing
limits on party’s request to require opposing party to review documents referring to that party
because “such a review is likely to involve communications that occurred during the pendency of
this lawsuit and center on the subject of this lawsuit”); S.E.C. v. Thrasher, 92 CIV. 6987 (JFK),
1996 WL 125661, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 1996) (denying party’s request for “production of all
communications between defense counsel concerning the lawsuit”); In re Imperial Corp. of Am.,
174 F.R.D. 475, 476, 479 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (permitting party “to assert privilege and workproduct protections on a categorical basis,” which included party’s request to categorically
exclude any documents that were “prepared to assist in anticipated or pending litigation”).
Public Resource also is misguided in its assertion that a document-by-document privilege log is
always required. Courts regularly affirm the assertion of privilege based on a description of
categories of documents rather than a document-by-document list, when creation of a more
detailed privilege log would have little benefit and would be “overly burdensome.” Imperial,
supra, 174 F.R.D. at 479; S.E.C. v. LovesLines Overseas Mgmt., Ltd., Misc. No., 04302RWRAK, 2007 WL 581909, n. 5 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2007).
At a minimum, Public Resource’s motion on this point is premature. The documents
Public Resource submits in support of its motion reveal that the parties are still in the process of
negotiating over custodians of documents to be searched, search terms to be applied, and date

9

ranges for production of documents. See, e.g., Lu Decl. Exs. 12, 14. Once these issues have
been resolved, NFPA will be in a better position to assess the burden of logging each and every
document that refers to this litigation.
5.

Information Regarding Legal Authorities that Incorporate NFPA’s
Standards is Just As Available to Public Resource as to NFPA

Public Resource next argues that NFPA should be required to produce documents
“sufficient to identify every Legal Authority that incorporates each Work-at-Issue, either
expressly or by reference.” Mot. 11. This request is improper because it pertains entirely to
information that is in the public domain, and that is equally available to Public Resource as it is
to NFPA. Nonetheless, NFPA has agreed to produce the current version of its internal database
that tracks instances of incorporation by reference. Lu Decl. Ex. 12, at 10. NFPA generally
monitors incorporation of its standards by means of this database, but cannot guarantee that it has
necessarily been made aware of every last jurisdiction to have incorporated part or all of an
NFPA standard. Id. To the extent that Public Resource is demanding that NFPA conduct
additional inquiries to determine whether there are instances of incorporation by reference not
captured by its database, this amounts to a request that NFPA conduct legal research on Public
Resource’s behalf. NFPA should not be responsible for searching for publicly available
information about the laws of states and municipalities across the country. Collecting this
information would be just as burdensome for NFPA as for Public Resource.
6.

NFPA’s ROPs and ROCs Fully Address Public Resource’s Requests

Finally, Public Resource argues that NFPA’s ROPs and ROCs are not sufficiently
responsive to several of Public Resource’s document requests. This argument appears to be
based on Public Resource’s misunderstanding of the contents of the ROPs and ROCs. Public
Resource incorrectly asserts that these documents are “simply summaries” of the comments and
10

input that go into the development of NFPA standards. Mot. 13. That is incorrect. The ROPs
and ROCs function as comprehensive records of the standards development process. Dubay
Decl. ¶ 9. These documents compile and reproduce every proposal and every comment that is
received when the standards are being developed. Id. ¶ 10. These documents also identify the
individuals or entities that submitted each comment or proposal. (In some cases, multiple
entities submit the same proposal, generally as part of a letter-writing campaign. In instances
like this, the ROP reproduces the proposal along with a list of the submitters.) Id. ¶11. The
ROPs and ROCs further identify the members of each committee that worked on the proposals,
and detail the votes of the committees on each proposal. These are voluminous and
comprehensive documents. For example, for the 2011 version of NFPA’s largest standard, the
National Electrical Code (“NEC”), the ROP is 1209 pages and the ROC is 689 pages.3
Public Resource does not identify any actual deficiencies in the responsiveness of
NFPA’s production, nor does it identify any information that it seeks that is not found in these
documents. Public Resource simply demands further documents without reason. Moreover, it
would be highly burdensome for NFPA to collect, review, and produce further documents
beyond the ROPs and ROCs. Because the ROPs and ROCs are intended to serve and do serve as
the complete record of proceedings for NFPA standards development, NFPA does not actively
maintain additional records in a manner that is easily accessible. For all standards revisions prior
to 2010, the underlying committee materials are not stored electronically, but are kept physically.
Dubay Decl. ¶ 14. Collecting these documents would involve physically gathering, reviewing
and copying tens of thousands of pages of materials. Id. ¶ 15. Gathering all these documents
would serve no purpose when the ROPs and ROCs provide the comments and proposals, the

3

These documents are publicly available at http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/70-A2010-ROP.pdf
and http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/70-A2010-ROC.pdf .

11

identities of the submitters, and the committee comments and votes on each comment and
proposal.
For standards development since 2010, NFPA does have electronically stored versions of
the underlying documents. Id. But reviewing and producing these thousands of pages of
documents would still take a significant amount of resources and time and would serve no
purpose in this litigation, given that the actual record of proceedings captured in the ROPs and
ROCs provides all the information sufficient to inform Public Resource about the categories of
information it seeks. See Lu Decl. Ex. 6 (Public Resource Request No. 4 seeks “Documents
sufficient to identify all Contributions in support of the Standards Process of each Work-atIssue”; Requests Nos. 12, 13, and 15 seek documents concerning Contributions and offers of
Contributions to the Standards Process for each Work-at Issue).
IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court should deny Public Resource’s motion.

12

Dated: October 2, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kelly Klaus
Anjan Choudhury (D.C. Bar: 497271)
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Kelly M. Klaus
Jonathan H. Blavin
Nathan M. Rehn
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
560 Mission St., 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for National Fire Protection Association, Inc.

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Opposition to Public
Resource’s Motion to Compel was served this 2nd day of October, 2014 via CM/ECF upon the
following:
Counsel for Public.Resource.Org, Inc.:
Andrew Bridges
Kathleen Lu
David Halperin
Mitchell L. Stoltz
Corynne McSherry
Joseph Gratz
Mark Lemley
Counsel for American Society for Testing and Materials d/b/a ASTM International:
Michael F. Clayton
J. Kevin Fee
Jordana S. Rubel
Counsel for American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers:
Jeffrey Bucholtz
Kenneth Steinthal
Joseph Wetzel
Andrew Zee

_/s/ Thane Rehn______
Thane Rehn