AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC. et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
AFFIDAVIT re #33 MOTION to Consolidate Cases Defendant-Counterclaim Public.Resource.Org, Inc.'s Motion to Consolidate for the Purposes of Discovery Declaration of Matthew B. Becker in Support of Defendant-Counterclaim Public.Resource.Org, Inc.'s Motion to Consolidate for the Purposes of Discovery (Dkt. 33) by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Bridges, Andrew)
IN THE 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.,
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00857-TSC-DAR
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW B.
BECKER IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR
THE PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY
I, Matthew B. Becker, hereby declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 as follows:
I am a member of the bar of the State of California and am admitted pro hac vice
before this Court. I am an associate in the law firm of Fenwick & West LLP and counsel of
record for Defendant-Counterclaimant Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (“Public Resource”). I submit
this declaration in support of Public Resource’s Motion to Consolidate for the Purposes of
On January 28, 2015, I conferred telephonically with counsel for plaintiffs in the
American Society for Testing and Materials et al. v. Public.Resource.Org case (Case No. 1:13cv-01215-TSC-DAR), along with my co-counsel, Andrew Bridges. During that conference, Mr.
Bridges asked counsel for all three plaintiffs that Public Resource intended to file a motion for
consolidation with the American Educational Research Association et al. v. Public.Resource.Org
case (Case No. 1:14-cv-00857-TSC-DAR), and asked if they would consent to that motion.
Counsel for all three plaintiffs responded that they would not consent to consolidation for the
purposes of discovery.
On January 26, 2015 Public Resource received a second set of requests for
production of documents from the AERA Plaintiffs. These requests for production included
requests for “responses to all sets of Requests for Production of Documents and Things served
by the ASTM Plaintiffs in the ASTM case,” “responses to all sets of Requests for Admissions
served by the ASTM Plaintiffs in the ASTM case,” and “all transcripts and exhibits from any
depositions taken in the ASTM Case.” A true and correct copy of the second set of requests for
production of documents is attached as Exhibit 1.
I declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January
/s/ Matthew B. Becker
Matthew B. Becker
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?