Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al
MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc., Sage Publications, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Plaitniffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Statement of Material Facts Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment)(Rains, John) --Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.--
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs, -vs.MARK P. BECKER, in his official capacity as Georgia State University President, et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc., and Sage Publications, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") respectfully move this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment against each Defendant in this action on all claims set forth in their First Amended Complaint ("Complaint"). Defendants, who are the administrators of Georgia State University ("GSU") and the members of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, have facilitated, enabled, encouraged, and induced GSU professors to utilize GSU and University System of Georgia technology to afford students access to thousands of course reading materials for hundreds of courses each semester in
Civil Action File No.1:08-CV-1425-ODE
digital formats without permission from or compensation to the copyright owners. Among these course reading materials are many works for which Plaintiffs hold copyrights, including the works identified in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. In the face of this widespread and on-going copyright infringement, Defendants claim that their unauthorized copying and distribution of Plaintiffs' works is excused by the doctrine of fair use. Defendants are wrong. Distributing the course reading materials at issue in this case without permission or the payment of licensing fees is contrary to well-established copyright jurisprudence. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, statement of undisputed material facts, declarations, and exhibits, which are incorporated herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant summary judgment in their favor on each of their claims. Respectfully submitted this 26th day of February, 2010. /s/ John H. Rains IV Edward B. Krugman Georgia Bar No. 429927 John H. Rains IV Georgia Bar No. 556052
BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com m R. Bruce Rich (pro hac vice) Randi Singer (pro hac vice) Todd D. Larson (pro hac vice) Jonathan Bloom (pro hac vice pending) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day filed the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF filing system which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to the following attorneys of record: Anthony B. Askew, Esq. Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq. Katrina M. Quicker, Esq. John P. Sheesley, Esq. Kristen A. Swift, Esq. C. Suzanne Johnson, Esq. Laura E. Gary, Esq. King & Spalding 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Mary Jo Volkert, Esq. Assistant S. Attorney General 40 Capitol Square Atlanta, Georgia 30334 This 26th day of February, 2010. /s/ John H. Rains IV John H. Rains IV
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?