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

Filing 29

Memorandum in opposition to re #27 Amended MOTION to Compel filed filed by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Andrew P. Bridges in Support of Defendant-Counterclaimant Public.Resource.Org, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants' Amended Motion to Compel, #2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Andrew P. Bridges, #3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Andrew P. Bridges, #4 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Andrew P. Bridges, #5 Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Andrew P. Bridges, #6 Exhibit 5 to Declaration of Andrew P. Bridges, #7 Exhibit 6 to Declaration of Andrew P. Bridges, #8 Exhibit 7 to Declaration of Andrew P. Bridges)(Bridges, Andrew)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 4 December 18, 2014 Via E-Mail Andrew P. Bridges, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 112th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94104 JONATHAN HUDIS (703) 412-7047 JHUDIS@OBLON.COM KATHLEEN COONEY-PORTER (703) 413-3000 KCOONEY-PORTER@OBLON.COM *BAR OTHER THAN VIRGINIA Re: American Education Research Association, Inc. et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-00857-TSC Our Ref: 431384US-332060-332060-69-L DMS Dear Andrew: We have reviewed Public Resource’s Amended Responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Production Requests (collectively, “Amended Responses”), which we received on December 15, 2014. Our comments concerning Public Resource’s Amended Responses follow below. 1. Numbering On both of Public Resource’s Amended Responses to Plaintiffs’ Production Requests and Interrogatories, the numbering of the specific responses is incorrect – making the documents confusing to read. Please provide us with revised versions of Public Resource’s Amended Responses with the proper numbering. 2. Amended Responses to Interrogatory No. 5 and Production Request No. 7 Public Resource’s Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 5 identifies the number of HTTP, FTP, and Rsync requests recorded on the public.resource.org website for the filename “aera.standards.1999.pdf.” In its Amended Response to Production Request No. 7, Public Resource refers to its Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 5 – stating that “Public Resource has provided a report specifying the numbers of times the 1999 Standard was accessed from the Public.Resource.Org website.” Amended Resp. to Prod. Reqs., at p. 11. Public Resource’s Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 5, however, simply lists the number of HTTP, FTP, and Rsync requests by month without providing any additional information or documentation regarding how those numbers were calculated or generated. Plaintiffs’ Production Request No. 1, asks that Public Resource provide those materials it identified in responding to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories. Please provide a date-certain by which Public Resource will produce the materials relied upon in responding to Interrogatory No. 5. OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET  ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314  U.S.A. TELEPHONE: 703-413-3000  FACSIMILE: 703-413-2220  WWW.OBLON.COM Andrew P. Bridges, Esq. Our Ref. 431384US-332060-332060-69-L DMS Page 2 Additionally, the recordation dates for the HTTP, FTP, and Rsync requests begin in April 2013 and run until October 2014. Public Resource’s response to Interrogatory No. 2, however, states that Plaintiffs’ 1999 Standards were first posted to the law.resource.org website on July 11, 2012. Please provide us with the number of HTTP, FTP, and Rsync requests recorded on Defendant’s website for the filename “aera.standards.1999.pdf” from July 2012 to the present. Very truly yours, OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. Jonathan Hudis Kathleen Cooney-Porter JH/jh {11299299_1.DOCX } cc: Mitchell L. Stoltz, Esq., Corynne McSherry, Esq., David Halperin, Esq. American Educational Research Association, Inc. American Psychological Association, Inc. National Council on Measurement in Education, Inc. Katherine D. Cappaert, Esq.

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?