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 7

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING.
.
AND MATERIALS, ET AL.,
.
.
Plaintiffs,
.
.
v.
.
.
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC., .
.
Defendant.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Case No. 1:13-CV-01215
(TSC/DAR)
Washington, D.C.
December 1, 2014

STATUS CONFERENCE
BEFORE THE HONORABLE DEBORAH A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For American Society
for Testing and
Materials:

Morgan, Lewis & Bacchus, LLP
By: J. KEVIN FEE, ESQ.
EDWIN O. CHILDS, ESQ.
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

For National Fire
Protection
Association, Inc.:

Manger, Toles & Olson, LLP
By: NATHAN M. REHN, ESQ.
560 Mission Street, 27th Far.
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907

For American Society
of Heating,
Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.:

King & Spalding, LLP
By: MICHAEL ANDREW ZEE, ESQ.
101 Second Street, Ste. 2300
Room 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105

For Defendant Public.
Resource.Org., Inc.:

Fenwick & West, LLP
By: ANDREW P. BRIDGES, ESQ.
555 California Street
Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ____________________________________________________
B O W LE S R EP O R T IN G S E R V IC E
255 R oute 12, S uite 1
G A L ES FE R R Y , C O N N E C T IC U T 06335 - [phone]
brs-ct@ sbcglobal.net

2

1
2

(Proceedings commenced at 3:30 p.m.)
THE CLERK:

The matter now pending before

3

this Court is American Society for Testing and

4

Materials, et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Incorporated

5

in Civil Action Number 13-1215.

6
7
8
9
10

Edwin Childs and Kevin Fee is representing
Plaintiff American Society for Testing and Materials.
Dane (phonetic) Rehn is representing
Plaintiff National Fire Protection Association,
Incorporated.

11

Andrew Zee is representing Plaintiff American

12

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning

13

Engineers, Incorporated.

14
15

And Andrew Bridges is representing Defendant
Public.Resource.Org, Incorporated.

16

THE COURT:

17

VOICES:

18

THE COURT:

Now, good morning to all of you.

Good morning, Your Honor.
We are here for the completion of

19

the Court's effort to resolve the issues presented by

20

the pending motion.

21

I was pleased to read your status report and

22

determine that many of the issues had been resolved.

23

The Court, of course, this Court, entered an order

24

memorializing that resolution.

25

The District Judge assigned to the case

49

1

really own these works,” but the law doesn't permit

2

anybody to come in and challenge an assignment between

3

us and a third party.

4

That's just not how it works.

The copyright registrations provide a

5

presumption of our ownership of copyright, and the

6

provision of the Copyright Act, Section 204, that

7

governs the requirement of written assignments, as far

8

as I know, every court to have interpreted that, has

9

said that the people who can challenge the validity of

10

an assignment are the people who claim to be authors,

11

who claim that they did not assign their rights to the

12

person who owns the copyright registration.

13

So, this whole endeavor is a side show.

14

We’ve been willing to cooperate, to the extent that

15

it’s reasonable, but we don't think there's any reason

16

to do anything further with respect to these requests.

17
18
19
20

THE COURT:

Very well.

Thank you very much,

Mr. Rehn.
Mr. Bridges, may I ask you to respond only as
to NFPA, please, --

21

MR. BRIDGES:

22

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.
-- bearing in mind that at this

23

time, unless I am persuaded otherwise during the course

24

your reply, it appears that the appropriate action is

25

to deny the request without prejudice as to NFPA, since

73

C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript
from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings
in the above-entitled matter.

/s/_______________________
Stephen C. Bowles

December 10, 2014