AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC. et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
Filing
112
REPLY to opposition to motion re #106 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC., AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MEASUREMENT IN EDUCATION, INC. (This document is SEALED and only available to aut [Redacted Version] Defendant Public.Resource.Org, Inc.'s Reply to Its Objections and Motions to Strike Plaintiffs' Supplemental Evidence filed by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Matthew Becker In Support of Defendant Public Resource's Reply to Its Objections and Motions to Strike Plaintiffs' Supplemental Evidence)(Becker, Matthew)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
ASSOCIATION, INC., AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., and
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MEASUREMENT IN
EDUCATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:14-CV-00857-TSC-DAR
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW
BECKER IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT PUBLIC RESOURCE’S
REPLY TO ITS OBJECTIONS AND
MOTIONS TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
v.
Action Filed: May 23, 2014
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG,
Defendant.
I, Matthew Becker, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 as follows:
1.
I am an attorney admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and am an
associate with the law firm of Fenwick & West LLP, counsel of record for DefendantCounterclaimant Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (“Public Resource”). Except where otherwise
indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts herein and could and would testify competently
hereto.
2.
On January 19, 2016, I contacted Jonathan Hudis, counsel for Plaintiffs, to request
to meet and confer regarding Public Resource’s intent to file a motion to strike the Declaration of
Kurt F. Geisinger submitted by Plaintiffs. Mr. Hudis responded simply that Plaintiffs anticipated
Public Resource would file such a motion, and that they would oppose it.
3.
On March 31st, I met and conferred by telephone with Jonathan Labukas, counsel
for Plaintiffs, regarding Public Resource’s Objections to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Evidence (ECF
No. 98-3 and 99-4) and Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motions Embedded Within Defendant-
1
Counterclaimant Public.Resource.Org’s Objections to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Evidence (ECF
No. 107), so as to narrow any issues of disagreement and determine if there were any issues the
parties might be able to agree on, as well as clarify questions that Public Resource had
concerning Plaintiffs’ Opposition.
4.
During that call, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed me that Plaintiffs did not believe
there to be any issues to address that were not already fully addressed in Plaintiffs’ Opposition,
ECF No. 107, and that there did not appear to be any means to narrow the issues in dispute.
5.
Also during that call, I informed Plaintiffs that I was not aware of any legal or
procedural basis for their filing of Plaintiffs’ Response to Public Resource’s Statement of
Disputed Facts, and asked Plaintiffs’ counsel if he could provide me with any
authorities. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that Plaintiffs were compelled by disagreements with
Public Resource’s Statement of Disputed Facts, and could not identify any authority supporting
Plaintiffs’ decision to file that document, nor any instance where a court in the District of
Columbia has permitted such a filing.
6.
Also during that call, I informed Plaintiffs that I was not aware of any legal basis
for Plaintiffs’ assertion that Public Resource’s objection to the Phillips Report constitutes a
discovery motion, and alerted them to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2), which permits
objections to evidence at summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ counsel could not identify any legal
authority under which Public Resource’s objections should be considered a discovery motion.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this March 31, 2016, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ Matthew Becker
Matthew Becker
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?