AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC. et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.

Filing 124

NOTICE RE PRELIMINARY AND NON-BINDING STATEMENT OF ISSUES BY APPELLANT/DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMANT PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. (Bridges, Andrew)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC.; Case No. 1:14-CV-00857-TSC-DAR AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC.; and PRELIMINARY AND NON-BINDING STATEMENT OF ISSUES BY APPELLANT/DEFENDANTCOUNTERCLAIMANT PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MEASUREMENT IN EDUCATION, INC., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. Action Filed: May 23, 2014 PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. Defendant/Counterclaimant. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b), Defendant and Counterclaimant Public.Resource.Org, Inc. hereby provides the following preliminary and non-binding statement of issues on appeal: I. Statement of Issues to be Raised 1. Did the district court err by enjoining Public.Resource.Org? 2. Did the district court err in holding that Plaintiff-Appellees can assert copyright in, and thus limit the ability of people to read and communicate, the text of standards that are legally binding due to incorporation into state and federal laws and regulations? 3. Did the district court err in holding that Public.Resource.Org’s posting of standards that are legally binding due to incorporation into state and federal laws and regulations, in the course of building a publicly accessible archive of government edicts, was not a fair use? 4. Did the district court err in holding that Plaintiff-Appellees own copyrights in standards that are legally binding due to incorporation into state and federal laws and regulations, despite undisputed evidence showing that Plaintiff-Appellees were not the authors of those standards? 5. Did the district court err by declining to strike a purported expert report of Dr. Kurt Geisinger that applied no specialized knowledge, experience, or expertise, but merely repeated the subjective opinions of Plaintiff-Appellees’ employees and officers, and who failed to disclose his opinions in his expert report, and submitted unreliable conclusions? 6. Did the district court err by making evidentiary rulings against Public.Resource.Org, and failing to sustain Public.Resource.Org’s evidentiary objections regarding Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment? II. Underlying Decision from Which Appeal Arises The rulings under review (attached hereto) are the district court’s Order of February 2, 2017 granting Plaintiff-Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment, granting Plaintiff-Appellees’ Motion for Permanent Injunction, and denying Defendant-Appellant Public.Resource.Org’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 118) and Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 117), and the district court’s Order of September 21, 2016 denying Defendant-Appellant Public.Resource.Org’s Motion to Strike the expert report of Dr. Kurt Geisinger (ECF No. 115). 2 Dated: March 3, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Andrew P. Bridges Andrew P. Bridges (admitted) abridges@fenwick.com Sebastian E. Kaplan (admitted pro hac vice) skaplan@fenwick.com Matthew B. Becker (admitted pro hac vice) mbecker@fenwick.com FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 Mitchell L. Stoltz (D.C. Bar No. 978149) mitch@eff.org Corynne McSherry (admitted pro hac vice) corynne@eff.org ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 David Halperin (D.C. Bar No. 426078) davidhalperindc@gmail.com 1530 P Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 905-3434 Attorneys for Defendant-Counterclaimant Public.Resource.Org, Inc. 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court for the District of Columbia and served on all counsel of record via the CM/ECF system on March 3, 2017. /s/ Andrew P. Bridges Andrew P. Bridges 4

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?