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

Filing 91

Memorandum in opposition to re #86 Emergency MOTION for Order and Request for Expedited Briefing Schedule filed by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.. (Attachments: #1 [Public] Declaration of Andrew P. Bridges In Support of Public.Resource.Org, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Request for Expedited Briefing Schedule, #2 Exhibit 1 to Bridges Declaration, #3 Exhibit 2 to Bridges Declaration, #4 Exhibit 3 to Bridges Declaration, #5 Exhibit 4 to Bridges Declaration, #6 Exhibit 5 to Bridges Declaration, #7 Exhibit 6 to Bridges Declaration, #8 Exhibit 7 to Bridges Declaration, #9 Exhibit 8 to Bridges Declaration, #10 Exhibit 9 to Bridges Declaration, #11 Exhibit 10 to Bridges Declaration, #12 Exhibit 11 to Bridges Declaration, #13 Exhibit 12 to Bridges Declaration, #14 Exhibit 13 to Bridges Declaration, #15 Exhibit 14 to Bridges Declaration, #16 Exhibit 15 to Bridges Declaration, #17 Exhibit 16 to Bridges Declaration, #18 Text of Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Request for Expedited Briefing Schedule)(Bridges, Andrew)

EXHIBIT 6

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,
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01215-EGS
PLAINTIFF NATIONAL FIRE
PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG,
INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (NOS.
NFPA-1 THROUGH NFPA-18)
Filed: August 6, 2013

v.
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.,
Defendant and Counterclaimant.

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.

RESPONDING PARTY:

NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, INC.

SET NUMBER:

ONE (Nos. NFPA-1 through NFPA-18)

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34, Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant National Fire Protection Association, Inc. (“NFPA”) responds as follows to the first
set of Requests for Production propounded by Defendant and Counterclaimant
Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (“Public Resource”).
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following General Objections apply to and are incorporated in each and every
response to each and every specific Request for Production (“Request”), whether or not such
General Objections are expressly incorporated by reference in such response.
1.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction, to the extent

that it attempts to impose any burdens inconsistent with or in addition to the obligations imposed
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, or any other applicable law or rule.
2.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction as overly

broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it is not reasonably limited in scope, or seeks
information or documents neither relevant to any issue in this case nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly to the extent that compliance would
force NFPA to incur a substantial expense that outweighs any likely benefit of the discovery.
3.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent

that it lacks any reasonable time limitation.
4.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent

that it seeks information or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product
doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, immunity, protection, or doctrine. NFPA claims
such privileges and protections to the extent implicated by each Request, and excludes privileged
and protected information from its responses. The production of any privileged information or
document by NFPA is unintentional, and any such inadvertent production shall not be construed
as a waiver of any applicable objection or privilege. Public Resource shall, upon the request of
NFPA, immediately return or destroy any such documents inadvertently produced. Further,
upon Public Resource’s discovery of what it thinks may be a privileged document produced by
NFPA, Public Resource should immediately inform NFPA in writing. NFPA will neither
produce nor log privileged communications made between NFPA and outside counsel, or any
documents protected by the work product doctrine after the commencement of this litigation. All
such communications or documents were intended to be confidential and privileged, and they
have been treated as such. In light of the voluminous nature of such communications, including
them in NFPA’s privilege log would be unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
5.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent
-2-

that it calls for a legal conclusion. Any response by NFPA shall not be construed as providing a
legal conclusion regarding the meaning or application of any terms or phrases used in Public
Resource’s Requests, definitions, or instructions.
6.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent

that it seeks information or documents already in the possession of or more readily available to
Public Resource, in the public domain, that are equally available to Public Resource as they are
to NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by Public Resource with substantially the same
effort that would be required of NFPA. To the extent any documents are currently publicly
available to Public Resource at no cost on the NFPA website, NFPA expressly reserves the right
to request cost-shifting, consistent with Section 14.A of the parties’ Joint Meet-And-Confer
Report filed on December 30, 2013 (ECF No. 29), prior to incurring any cost associated with
producing such documents.
7.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent

that it seeks information or documents not within NFPA’s possession, custody, or control.
8.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent

that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
9.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent

that it seeks any confidential, financial, proprietary, or trade secret information, or any other
information or documents that NFPA is not permitted to disclose pursuant to confidentiality or
other legal or contractual obligations to third parties. NFPA will not produce such documents or
information until entry of an appropriate protective order. NFPA will meet and confer with
Public Resource regarding entry of a protective order.
10.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent

that it is argumentative.
11.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent

that it contains characterizations, definitions, or assumptions. Nothing contained in or absent
from NFPA’s responses, objections, or production shall constitute, or be deemed as, an
-3-

admission, concession, or agreement that Public Resource’s characterizations, definitions, or
assumptions are correct or accurate.
12.

NFPA objects to each and every Request, definition, and instruction to the extent

that it purports to require NFPA to compile information in a manner that is not maintained in the
ordinary course of business, or to create documents, including but not limited to charts, tables,
reviews, proposals, methodologies, and/or breakdowns, that do not already exist.
13.

NFPA objects to the defined terms “You”, “Your”, and “NFPA”, and to each and

every Request containing those terms, as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome to the extent that any of these terms include any entity other than NFPA.
14.

NFPA objects to the defined terms “Work-at-Issue” and “Works-at-Issue”, and to

each and every Request containing those terms, on the ground that they are overly broad and
unduly burdensome to the extent they include standards that are not at issue in this litigation.
NFPA will construe “Work-at-Issue” and “Works-at-Issue” to include only those standards that
are identified in Exhibit B to the Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.)
15.

NFPA objects to the defined term “Complete Chain of Title”, and to each and

every Request containing that term, as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
16.

NFPA objects to the defined term “Incorporated Standard”, and to each and every

Request containing that term, as overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as the term is
defined to extend to standards incorporated by jurisdictions outside the United States. NFPA
will construe “Incorporated Standard” as referring to any standard that a jurisdiction within the
United States has incorporated into law, including incorporation by reference.
17.

NFPA objects to the defined term “Standards Process”, and to each and every

Request containing that term, as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
18.

NFPA objects to the defined term “Legal Authority”, and to each and every

Request containing that term, as overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as the definition
extends to “any governmental edict, rule, regulation, law or other binding authority or
expression.” (Emphasis added.) NFPA will construe “Legal Authority” to refer to statutes,
-4-

regulations, and ordinances of government entities within the United States of America.
19.

NFPA objects to the defined term “Contribution”, and to each and every Request

containing that term, as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
20.

NFPA objects to the defined term “Document” as overly broad and unduly

burdensome to the extent that it requires NFPA to search for and provide electronic documents
or information that is not reasonably accessible.
21.

NFPA objects to each and every Request to the extent that it calls for the

production of “all” Documents concerning a subject matter on the ground that such Requests are
overly broad, unduly burdensome, duplicative, and seek production of irrelevant documents. To
the extent that NFPA produces documents in response to such requests, they will be limited to
documents sufficient to show matters that are appropriately discoverable.
22.

NFPA objects to each and every Request to the extent it seeks discovery of

documents or electronically stored information from sources that are not reasonably accessible in
light of the burdens or costs required to locate, restore, review and produce whatever responsive
information may be found. To the extent that any Request requires the identification or
production of email currently in electronic form, or any other electronic communications or
electronically stored information, and NFPA agrees to conduct a search of such media, NFPA
will search readily accessible email or other electronic media in relation to individual custodians
or other sources likely to have responsive documents. NFPA will not search emails that are
inaccessible or overly burdensome to restore and/or search (e.g., disaster recovery tapes), or
other inaccessible or burdensome electronically stored information. In addition to collecting
specific documents called for by the Requests, where NFPA agrees to search the files of
individual custodians, NFPA will meet and confer with Public Resource regarding the identity of
the custodians and a mutually agreeable set of search terms to run against the electronic files of
those custodians from a reasonable time period to cull potentially responsive electronic
communications.
23.

NFPA objects to Instruction 1 as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the
-5-

extent it purports to require NFPA to produce information that is not in the custody or control of
NFPA. NFPA further objects to Instruction 1 to the extent that it seeks information or
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other
applicable law, privilege, immunity, protection, or doctrine.
24.

NFPA objects to Instruction 3 to the extent that it attempts to impose any burdens

inconsistent with or in addition to the obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
or any other applicable law or rule.
25.

NFPA objects to Instruction 6 to the extent that it attempts to impose any burdens

inconsistent with or in addition to the obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
or any other applicable law or rule. In the event that NFPA withholds documents or information
based on a claim of privilege or protection, NFPA will comply with the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5), and any other applicable law or rule.
26.

NFPA objects to Instruction 9 as unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for

NFPA to prepare Public Resource’s case by analyzing or coding documents that have already
been produced in this litigation.
27.

NFPA objects to Public Resource’s instruction that all responsive documents be

produced within thirty (30) days after service of Public Resource’s requests. Public Resource
will produce documents on a rolling basis.
28.

NFPA objects to each and every Request to the extent it seeks to impose any

continuing duty to supplement or provide further responses.
29.

No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses herein. The

fact that NFPA has answered or objected to any Request should not be taken as a representation
by NFPA to the existence or non-existence of the information or documents requested by Public
Resource.
30.

By responding to Public Resource’s First Set of Requests for Production, NFPA
-6-

does not waive any privilege or objection that may be applicable to: (a) the use, for any purpose,
by Public Resource of any information or documents sought by Public Resource or provided in
response to an Request; (b) the admissibility, relevance, or materiality of any of the information
or documents to any issue in this case; or (c) any demand for further responses involving or
relating to the subject matter of any of the Requests.
31.

NFPA’s responses, regardless of whether they include a specific objection, do not

constitute an adoption or acceptance of the definitions and instructions that Public Resource
seeks to impose.
32.

NFPA’s responses are based on information reasonably available to NFPA as of

the date of these responses. The following responses are made to the best of NFPA’s present
knowledge, information, and belief. NFPA’s investigation is continuing and ongoing. Subject to
and without waiving any of its objections set forth herein, NFPA may supplement any of its
responses herein as necessary or appropriate if any additional information becomes available to
NFPA.
33.

Each and every General Objection shall be deemed to be incorporated in full into

each of the individual responses set forth below. From time to time a specific response may
repeat a General Objection for emphasis or other reason. The omission of any General Objection
in any specific response to any request is not intended to be and should not be construed as a
waiver or limitation of any General Objection to any Request. Likewise, the inclusion of any
specific objection in any specific response to any Request is not intended to be and should not be
construed as a waiver or limitation of any General Objection or specific objection made herein or
that may be asserted at another date.
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Documents sufficient to identify each Work-At-Issue.

-7-

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome
to the extent it includes standards that are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will construe
“Work-at-Issue” to include only those standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint.
(ECF No. 1-2.) Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, NFPA responds as
follows:
NFPA will produce documents sufficient to identify the standards that are listed in
Exhibit B to the Complaint in this action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Documents sufficient to establish Complete Chain of Title for each Work-At-Issue.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome
to the extent it includes standards that are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will construe
“Work-at-Issue” to include only those standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint.
(ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA further objects to the term “Complete Chain of Title” as vague,
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. NFPA further objects to the term “establish”
as vague and ambiguous in the context of this Request. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA will produce, for each work that is listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint in this
action, the copyright registration certificate. NFPA will also produce screen shots of the current
version of the form click-through agreement agreed to by all persons who submit Public Input or

-8-

Public Comments with respect to NFPA standards, which assigns copyright to NFPA. NFPA
will also produce screen shots of the current version of the form click-through agreement agreed
to by all persons who apply for membership on an NFPA Technical Committee or Panel, which
assigns copyright to NFPA. NFPA will also produce, to the extent they can be located after a
reasonable and diligent search, the “Report on Proposals” or “ROP” (currently referred to as the
“First Draft Report”) and the “Report on Comments” or “ROC” (currently referred to as the
“Second Draft Report”), corresponding to the particular edition of each standard listed in Exhibit
B to the Complaint. These documents list the voting and non-voting members of the relevant
technical committee or committees, as well as the NFPA staff liaison. They also identify the
individuals or organizations who submitted Public Input during the “Input Stage” stage of the
standard revision process, and the individuals or organizations who submitted Public Comment
during the “Comment Stage” of the process, and they detail the response of the relevant technical
committee to each Public Input and Public Comment. These documents may also be accessed
from the NFPA website—which provides free, downloadable, archived revision information for
each of the standards listed in Exhibit B of the Complaint—by visiting
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards and searching based on the NFPA document number
and the edition year.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Documents sufficient to identify all Persons who participated in the Standards Process of
each Work-At-Issue.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information or documents already in the

-9-

possession of or more readily available to Public Resource, in the public domain, that are equally
available to Public Resource as they are to NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by
Public Resource with substantially the same effort that would be required of NFPA. NFPA
further objects to the term “participated” as vague and ambiguous in the context of this Request.
NFPA further objects to the term “Standards Process” on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous,
overly broad, and unduly burdensome. NFPA further objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on the
ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it includes standards that
are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will construe “Work-at-Issue” to include only those
standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA further objects to
this Request on the ground that, as framed by Public Resource, it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The
Request seeks documents sufficient to identify every person who “participated” in the
“development, creation, drafting, revision, editing, transmission, publication, distribution,
display, or dissemination” of twenty-two separate copyrighted works. The Request apparently
extends not only to every person with any connection to the process of developing the standards
listed in Exhibit B of the Complaint, but also to every person who had any role in the
“publication” of those standards, as well as every person with any involvement in the
distribution, display, or dissemination of those standards at any point after their publication.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA will produce, to the extent they can be located after a reasonable and diligent
search, the “Report on Proposals” or “ROP” (currently referred to as the “First Draft Report”)
and the “Report on Comments” or “ROC” (currently referred to as the “Second Draft Report”),
corresponding to the particular edition of each standard listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint.

-10-

These documents list the voting and non-voting members of the relevant technical committee or
committees, as well as the NFPA staff liaison. They also identify the individuals or
organizations who submitted Public Input during the “Input Stage” stage of the standard revision
process, and the individuals or organizations who submitted Public Comment during the
“Comment Stage” of the process, and they detail the response of the relevant technical
committee to each Public Input and Public Comment. These documents may also be accessed
from the NFPA website—which provides free, downloadable, archived revision information for
each of the standards listed in Exhibit B of the Complaint—by visiting
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards and searching based on the NFPA document number
and the edition year.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Documents sufficient to identify all Contributions in support of the Standards Process of
each Work-At-Issue.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information or documents already in the
possession of or more readily available to Public Resource, in the public domain, that are equally
available to Public Resource as they are to NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by
Public Resource with substantially the same effort that would be required of NFPA. NFPA
further objects to the term “Contributions” on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, overly
broad, and unduly burdensome. NFPA further objects to the phrase “in support of” on the
ground that it is vague and ambiguous in the context of this Request. NFPA further objects to
the term “Standards Process” on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and

-11-

unduly burdensome. NFPA further objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is
overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it includes standards that are not at issue
in this litigation. NFPA will construe “Work-at-Issue” to include only those standards that are
listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA further objects to this Request on
the ground that, as framed by Public Resource, it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Request seeks
documents sufficient to identify every instance of “assistance, advice, financial support, labor,
effort, or expenditure of time” with respect to the “development, creation, drafting, revision,
editing, transmission, publication, distribution, display, or dissemination” of twenty-two separate
copyrighted works. The Request apparently extends to every expenditure of time, effort, or
funds made in connection with the lengthy process of developing 22 copyrighted works, as well
as every expenditure of time, effort, or funds made in connection with the publication of those
works, or the distribution, display, or dissemination of those works at any point after their
publication. NFPA further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks confidential,
proprietary, or trade secret information. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, NFPA responds as follows:
Upon the entry of a protective order, NFPA will produce its annual, year-end financial
reports for the past five years.
NFPA will also produce, to the extent they can be located after a reasonable and diligent
search, the “Report on Proposals” or “ROP” (currently referred to as the “First Draft Report”)
and the “Report on Comments” or “ROC” (currently referred to as the “Second Draft Report”),
corresponding to the particular edition of each standard listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint.
These documents list the voting and non-voting members of the relevant technical committee or

-12-

committees, as well as the NFPA staff liaison. They also identify the individuals or
organizations who submitted Public Input during the “Input Stage” stage of the standard revision
process, and the individuals or organizations who submitted Public Comment during the
“Comment Stage” of the process, and they detail the response of the relevant technical
committee to each Public Input and Public Comment. These documents may also be accessed
from the NFPA website—which provides free, downloadable, archived revision information for
each of the standards listed in Exhibit B of the Complaint—by visiting
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards and searching based on the NFPA document number
and the edition year.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Documents sufficient to identify every Legal Authority that incorporates each Work-AtIssue, either expressly or by reference.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to the term “Legal Authority” as overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as the
definition extends to “any governmental edict, rule, regulation, law or other binding authority or
expression.” (Emphasis added.) NFPA will construe “Legal Authority” to refer to statutes,
regulations, and ordinances of government entities within the United States of America. NFPA
further objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome to the extent it includes standards that are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will
construe “Work-at-Issue” to include only those standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the
Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks
information or documents already in the possession of or more readily available to Public

-13-

Resource, in the public domain, that are equally available to Public Resource as they are to
NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by Public Resource with substantially the same
effort that would be required of NFPA. Public Resource alleges that it is aware of the extent to
which “national, federal, state, or local governments have incorporated [private sector standards]
into law,” (ECF No. 21 ¶ 42), and its website purports to identify, for each standard listed in
Exhibit B, the jurisdiction or jurisdictions that have incorporated the standard by reference.
Because Public Resource already purports to have the information sought by this Request, there
is no need for NFPA to produce such information. What is more, the extent to which
jurisdictions have incorporated a particular standard by reference is a matter of public record,
and equally available to Public Resource as it is to NFPA. NFPA is willing to meet and confer
with Public Resource about this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
All documents constituting, comprising, referring to, or evidencing agreements between
You and any Person who participated in the Standards Process of each Work-At-Issue.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to the term “agreements” as vague and ambiguous within the context of this Request.
NFPA further objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is overly broad and
unduly burdensome. NFPA will construe “Work-at-Issue” to include only those standards that
are listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA further objects to the term
“Standards Process” on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome. NFPA further objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad and
unduly burdensome because it would extend to “any agreement” entered into by NFPA during

-14-

the lengthy standards development process for 22 separate copyrighted works, and, by its terms,
would apparently extend to agreements with no relevance to the issues being litigated in this
case, such as agreements between NFPA and hotel facilities where the meetings of its technical
committees took place. NFPA further objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly
broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for the production of “all” documents that
fall within the scope of the Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA will produce copies of the following agreements that are responsive to this
Request: a current version of the NFPA membership application; screen shots of the current
version of the form click-through agreement agreed to by all persons who submit Public Input or
Public Comments with respect to NFPA standards; screen shots of the current version of the
form click-through agreement agreed to by all persons who apply for membership on an NFPA
Technical Committee or Panel; a current version of the eligibility application for the NFPA
Enforcer Funding Program; a current version of the Technical Committee Member Travel
Reimbursement Request for the NFPA Enforcer Funding Program.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
All documents constituting, comprising, or concerning communications with any
government employee, official, or entity regarding incorporation (whether actual, proposed,
desired, or considered) of any Standard in which You claim rights into any Legal Authority.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to the undefined term “communications” as vague and ambiguous within the context of
this Request. NFPA further objects to the term “Legal Authority” as overly broad and unduly

-15-

burdensome insofar as the definition extends to “any governmental edict, rule, regulation, law or
other binding authority or expression.” (Emphasis added.) NFPA will construe “Legal
Authority” to refer to statutes, regulations, and ordinances of government entities within the
United States of America. NFPA further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome to the extent that it extends beyond the standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the
Complaint (ECF No. 1-2); to the extent that it extends to communications to which NFPA was
not a party; to the extent that it extends to communications with a “government employee,
official, or entity” outside the United States; and to the extent that it calls for the production of
“all” documents that fall within the scope of the Request. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA will produce responsive, non-privileged documents that can be located after a
reasonable and diligent search of the files of selected custodians confined to a reasonable time
period, and that constitute written or electronic communications between NFPA and government
employees or officials within the United States regarding the incorporation of the standards listed
in Exhibit B to the Complaint.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
All documents regarding Carl Malamud.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents protected by the
attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege,
immunity, protection or doctrine. NFPA further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents already in the possession of or more readily available to Public

-16-

Resource, in the public domain, that are equally available to Public Resource as they are to
NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by Public Resource with substantially the same
effort that would be required of NFPA. NFPA further objects to this Request as overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, including because it calls for the production of “all” documents regarding Carl
Malamud, without regard to whether the documents have any connection to the claims and
defenses at issue in this case.
In response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 28, seeking documents in Public
Resource’s possession relating to any Plaintiff, Public Resource conditioned its production of
responsive documents on “Plaintiffs’ agreement that they will produce all documents relating to
Public Resource.” NFPA does not agree to produce “all documents relating to Public Resource,”
“[a]ll documents regarding Carl Malamud” (Public Resource RFP No. 8) or “[a]ll documents
regarding Public Resource or its representatives . . . , including its legal representatives” (Public
Resource RFP No. 9). These requests of Public Resource are overly broad and unduly
burdensome, including because they are not limited to the claims and defenses at issue in this
case. In light of its conditional response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 28, and
NFPA’s unwillingness to agree to that condition, Public Resource’s current position is that it will
not produce any documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 28.
Accordingly, NFPA will take the same position with respect to Public Resource’s Requests for
Production Nos. 8 and 9. NFPA is willing to meet and confer with Public Resource regarding
this issue.

-17-

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
All documents regarding Public Resource or its representatives (other than Carl
Malamud), including its legal representatives.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents protected by the
attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege,
immunity, protection or doctrine. NFPA further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents already in the possession of or more readily available to Public
Resource, in the public domain, that are equally available to Public Resource as they are to
NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by Public Resource with substantially the same
effort that would be required of NFPA. NFPA further objects to this Request as vague and
ambiguous because NFPA does not know the identity of all of Public Resource’s
“representatives” and “legal representatives.” NFPA further objects to this Request as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, including because it calls for the production of “all” documents regarding Public
Resources or its representatives, without regard to whether the documents have any connection
to the claims and defenses at issue in this case. For example, as written, the Request seeks “all
documents” regarding Fenwick & West LLP, Durie Tangri LLP, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, and David Halperin, Esq., even if such documents have no connection to this
litigation.
In response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 28, seeking “All documents relating
to any Plaintiff,” Public Resource conditioned its production of responsive documents on

-18-

“Plaintiffs’ agreement that they will produce all documents relating to Public Resource.” NFPA
does not agree to produce “all documents relating to Public Resource,” “[a]ll documents
regarding Carl Malamud” (Public Resource RFP No. 8) or “[a]ll documents regarding Public
Resource or its representatives . . ., including its legal representatives” (Public Resource RFP No.
9). These requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, including because they are not
limited to the claims and defenses at issue in this case. In light of its conditional response to
Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 28, and NFPA’s inability to agree to that condition, Public
Resource’s current position is that it will not produce any documents responsive to Plaintiffs’
Request for Production No. 28. Accordingly, NFPA will take the same position with respect to
Public Resource’s Requests for Production Nos. 8 and 9. NFPA is willing to meet and confer
with Public Resource regarding this issue.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
All documents constituting or concerning communications among Persons who
participated in the Standards Process of each Work-At-Issue, including but not limited to
meeting and conference call minutes and notes.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents in the public domain,
that are equally available to Public Resource as they are to NFPA, or that could be derived or
ascertained by Public Resource with substantially the same effort that would be required of
NFPA. NFPA further objects to the terms “communications” and “participated” as vague and
ambiguous in the context of this Request. NFPA further objects to the term “Standards Process”
on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. NFPA further objects to the term

-19-

“Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it
includes standards that are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will construe “Work-at-Issue” to
include only those standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA
further objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the
extent that it calls for the production of “all” documents that fall within the scope of the Request.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA will also produce, to the extent they can be located after a reasonable and diligent
search, the “Report on Proposals” or “ROP” (currently referred to as the “First Draft Report”)
and the “Report on Comments” or “ROC” (currently referred to as the “Second Draft Report”),
corresponding to the particular edition of each standard listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint.
These documents list the voting and non-voting members of the relevant technical committee or
committees, as well as the NFPA staff liaison. They also identify the individuals or
organizations who submitted Public Input during the “Input Stage” stage of the standard revision
process, and the individuals or organizations who submitted Public Comment during the
“Comment Stage” of the process, and they detail the response of the relevant technical
committee to each Public Input and Public Comment. These documents may also be accessed
from the NFPA website—which provides free, downloadable, archived revision information for
each of the standards listed in Exhibit B of the Complaint—by visiting
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards and searching based on the NFPA document number
and the edition year.

-20-

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
All documents concerning revenue or profit expectations by You or any other Person
regarding the availability, publication, sale, distribution, display, or other dissemination of any
Standard in which You claim rights.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks
“revenue or profit expectations” by persons other than NFPA regarding NFPA standards. NFPA
further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents already in the
possession of or more readily available to Public Resource, in the public domain, that are equally
available to Public Resource as they are to NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by
Public Resource with substantially the same effort that would be required of NFPA. NFPA
further objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the
extent that it calls for the production of “all” documents that fall within the scope of the Request,
and to the extent that it includes standards that are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will
construe this Request to include only those standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the
Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous,
including because it is not clear what Public Resource means when it refers to “revenue or profit
expectations . . . regarding the availability . . . of any Standard.” NFPA further objects to this
Request to the extent that it seeks confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information. Subject
to and without waiving the foregoing objections, NFPA responds as follows:

-21-

Upon the entry of a protective order, NFPA will produce its annual, year-end financial
statements for the past five years, and its annual reports for the past five years showing its
revenues from the sale of individual NFPA works.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
All documents concerning any Contributions You have received from any governmental
entity in connection with the Standards Process of each Work-At-Issue.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information or documents already in the
possession of or more readily available to Public Resource, in the public domain, that are equally
available to Public Resource as they are to NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by
Public Resource with substantially the same effort that would be required of NFPA. NFPA
further objects to the terms “Contributions” and “Standards Process” as overly broad and unduly
burdensome. NFPA further objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is overly
broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes standards that are not at issue in this
litigation. NFPA will construe “Work-at-Issue” to include only those standards that are listed in
Exhibit B to the Complaint. NFPA further objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly
broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for the production of “all” documents that
fall within the scope of the Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA will produce, to the extent they can be located after a reasonable and diligent
search, the “Report on Proposals” or “ROP” (currently referred to as the “First Draft Report”)
and the “Report on Comments” or “ROC” (currently referred to as the “Second Draft Report”),

-22-

corresponding to the particular edition of each standard listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint.
These documents list the voting and non-voting members of the relevant technical committee or
committees, as well as the NFPA staff liaison. They also identify the individuals, organizations,
or government entities who submitted Public Input during the “Input Stage” stage of the standard
revision process, and who submitted Public Comment during the “Comment Stage” of the
process, and they detail the response of the relevant technical committee to each Public Input and
Public Comment. These documents may also be accessed from the NFPA website—which
provides free, downloadable, archived revision information for each of the standards listed in
Exhibit B of the Complaint—by visiting http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards and searching
based on the NFPA document number and the edition year.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
All documents concerning any Contributions You have received from any not-for-profit
entity (other than a governmental entity) in connection with the Standards Process of each WorkAt-Issue.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. NFPA further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information or
documents already in the possession of or more readily available to Public Resource, in the
public domain, that are equally available to Public Resource as they are to NFPA, or that could
be derived or ascertained by Public Resource with substantially the same effort that would be
required of NFPA. NFPA further objects to the terms “Contributions” and “Standards Process”
as overly broad and unduly burdensome. NFPA further objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on

-23-

the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes standards that
are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will construe “Work-at-Issue” to include only those
standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint. NFPA further objects to this Request on
the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for the
production of “all” documents that fall within the scope of the Request. NFPA further objects to
this Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents not within NFPA’s possession,
custody, or control. NFPA further objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for a legal
conclusion. In particular, the question whether particular organizations involved in the
development of NFPA standards are “not-for-profit entit[ies]” involves information that is
outside of NFPA’s possession, custody, and control, and calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to
and without waiving the foregoing objections, NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA will produce, to the extent they can be located after a reasonable and diligent
search, the “Report on Proposals” or “ROP” (currently referred to as the “First Draft Report”)
and the “Report on Comments” or “ROC” (currently referred to as the “Second Draft Report”),
corresponding to the particular edition of each standard listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint.
These documents list the voting and non-voting members of the relevant technical committee or
committees, as well as the NFPA staff liaison. They also identify the individuals or
organizations who submitted Public Input during the “Input Stage” stage of the standard revision
process, and the individuals or organizations who submitted Public Comment during the
“Comment Stage” of the process, and they detail the response of the relevant technical
committee to each Public Input and Public Comment. These documents may also be accessed
from the NFPA website—which provides free, downloadable, archived revision information for
each of the standards listed in Exhibit B of the Complaint—by visiting

-24-

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards and searching based on the NFPA document number
and the edition year.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
All documents constituting, comprising, or concerning communications requesting
Contributions of any form from any Person in connection with the Standards Process of each
Work-At-Issue.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information or documents already in the
possession of or more readily available to Public Resource, in the public domain, that are equally
available to Public Resource as they are to NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by
Public Resource with substantially the same effort that would be required of NFPA. NFPA
further objects to the term “communications” as vague and ambiguous in the context of this
Request. NFPA further objects to the terms “Contributions” and “Standards Process” on the
ground that they are overly broad and unduly burdensome. NFPA further objects to the term
“Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it
includes standards that are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will construe “Work-at-Issue” to
include only those standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA
further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks
communications to which NFPA was not a party. NFPA further objects to this Request to the
extent that it seeks information or documents not within NFPA’s possession, custody, or control.
NFPA further objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome to the extent that it calls for the production of “all” documents that fall within the

-25-

scope of the Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, NFPA responds
as follows:
NFPA’s standards are revised and updated every three to five years, in revision cycles
that typically take approximately two years to complete. NFPA publicizes its upcoming revision
cycles in order to encourage participation in the standards development process from interested
parties and the general public. Such communications are primarily available on the NFPA
website. For example, NFPA maintains a “Document Information” page for every one of its
existing standards, which contains information on the schedule for revision and upcoming
meetings of the relevant Technical Committee(s). Those pages are available at
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/document-information-pages. NFPA also publishes a
monthly electronic newsletter, NFPA News, that contains news and information on upcoming
revision cycles. Electronic copies of that newsletter are available at http://www.nfpa.org/codesand-standards/nfpa-news. NFPA directs Plaintiff to its website for these and other documents
responsive to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
All documents concerning offers of Contributions from any Person in connection with the
Standards Process of each Work-At-Issue.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request on the ground that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. NFPA further objects to the term “communications” as vague and
ambiguous in the context of this Request. NFPA further objects to the terms “Contributions” and
“Standards Process” on the ground that they are overly broad and unduly burdensome. NFPA

-26-

further objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome to the extent it includes standards that are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will
construe “Work-at-Issue” to include only those standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the
Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome to the extent that it seeks communications to which NFPA was not a party. NFPA
objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents not within NFPA’s
possession, custody, or control. NFPA further objects to this Request on the ground that it is
overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for the production of “all”
documents that fall within the scope of the Request. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA will produce, to the extent they can be located after a reasonable and diligent
search, the “Report on Proposals” or “ROP” (currently referred to as the “First Draft Report”)
and the “Report on Comments” or “ROC” (currently referred to as the “Second Draft Report”),
corresponding to the particular edition of each standard listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint.
These documents list the voting and non-voting members of the relevant technical committee or
committees, as well as the NFPA staff liaison. They also identify the individuals or
organizations who submitted Public Input during the “Input Stage” stage of the standard revision
process, and the individuals or organizations who submitted Public Comment during the
“Comment Stage” of the process, and they detail the response of the relevant technical
committee to each Public Input and Public Comment. These documents may also be accessed
from the NFPA website—which provides free, downloadable, archived revision information for
each of the standards listed in Exhibit B of the Complaint—by visiting

-27-

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards and searching based on the NFPA document number
and the edition year.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
All documents constituting, comprising, or concerning communications criticizing Your
claims, statements, arguments, or positions in this dispute or litigation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. NFPA further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or
documents already in the possession of or more readily available to Public Resource, in the
public domain, that are equally available to Public Resource as they are to NFPA, or that could
be derived or ascertained by Public Resource with substantially the same effort that would be
required of NFPA. NFPA further objects to the undefined terms “communications” and
“dispute” as vague and ambiguous within the context of this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
All documents constituting, comprising, or concerning communications by You
regarding this dispute or litigation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to this Request on the ground that it primarily seeks information or documents protected
by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege,
immunity, protection or doctrine. NFPA further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents already in the possession of or more readily available to Public

-28-

Resource, in the public domain, that are equally available to Public Resource as they are to
NFPA, or that could be derived or ascertained by Public Resource with substantially the same
effort that would be required of NFPA. NFPA further objects to this Request as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. NFPA further objects to the terms
“communications,” “dispute,” and “litigation” as vague and ambiguous in the context of this
Request. NFPA further objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome to the extent that it calls for the production of “all” documents that fall within the
scope of the Request. NFPA is willing to meet and confer with Public Resource to discuss
whether this Request can be narrowed to address relevant, non-privileged information in a
manner that would not impose an undue burden on NFPA. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA directs Public Resource to the NFPA website for public statements by NFPA
concerning this litigation. Those statements include, but are not limited to, NFPA’s press release
upon filing this suit against Public Resource (http://www.nfpa.org/press-room/newsreleases/2013/media-statement), a column that NFPA’s President wrote concerning the lawsuit
(http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/september-october-2013/pov/firstword), and a blog post regarding the lawsuit (http://nfpatoday.blog.nfpa.org/2013/09/nfpasshannon-tells-nfpa-journal-why-nfpa-has-filed-copyright-infringement-suit-against-publicresou.html).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
All documents constituting, comprising, or concerning licenses with respect to any WorkAt-Issue.

-29-

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
NFPA incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. NFPA further
objects to the term “Work-at-Issue” on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome
to the extent it includes standards that are not at issue in this litigation. NFPA will construe
“Work-at-Issue” to include only those standards that are listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint.
(ECF No. 1-2.) NFPA further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and
ambiguous with respect to the meaning of the phrase “licenses with respect to.” Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, NFPA responds as follows:
NFPA will produce a representative sample of non-privileged documents constituting
licenses to use and/or distribute the standards listed in Exhibit B to the Complaint that can be
located after a reasonable and diligent search of the NFPA contracts database and/or the files of
selected custodians confined to a reasonable period of time.

Dated: March 20, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kelly M. Klaus
Kelly M. Klaus (pro hac vice)
Jonathan H. Blavin (pro hac vice)
Michael J. Mongan (pro hac vice)
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
560 Mission St., 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

-30-

PROOF OF SERVICE
American Society for Testing and Materials, et al. v. Public.Resource.Org., Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Case No. 1:13-cv-01215-EGS
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the City and County of San Francisco,
California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My
business address is 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105.
On March 20, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of the document(s) described as:
PLAINTIFF NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.’S FIRST SET
OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (NOS. NFPA-1 THROUGH
NFPA-18)
on the interested parties in this action BY ELECTRONIC MAIL as indicated on the attached
Service List.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at San Francisco, California on March 20, 2014.
/s/ Michael J. Mongan
Michael J. Mongan

-31-

SERVICE LIST
J. Kevin Fee
Michael Franck Clayton
Jordana Rubel
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND
MATERIALS

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz
KING & SPALDING, LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20006
[e-mail]

PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING,
REFRIGERATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING
ENGINEERS, INC.

Joseph R. Wetzel
Kenneth L. Steinthal
Andrew Zee
KING & SPALDING, LLP
101 2nd St., Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING,
REFRIGERATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING
ENGINEERS, INC.

Andrew Phillip Bridges
Kathleen Lu
FENWICK & WEST
555 California St., Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

DEFENDANT
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG., INC.

Mitchell L. Stolz
Corynne McSherry
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
815 Eddy Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

DEFENDANT
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG., INC.

David Elliot Halperin
1530 P Street, NW
Washington DC 20005
[e-mail]

DEFENDANT
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG., INC

Tel:
[phone]
FAX: [phone]

Tel: [phone]

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Tel: [phone]

-32-

Joseph C. Gratz
Mark A. Lemley
DURIE TANGRI LLP
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

DEFENDANT
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG., INC.
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

-33-