Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al

Filing 314

RESPONSE re 313 MOTION for Leave to File Motion In Limine To Prevent Plaintiffs From Introducing Improper Expert Testimony filed by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc., Sage Publications, Inc.. (Rains, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
PRESS, OXFORD UNIVERSITY
PRESS, INC., and SAGE
PUBLICATIONS, INC.,

Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1425-ODE

Plaintiffs,
-vMARK P. BECKER, in his official
capacity as Georgia State University
President, et. al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A MOTION IN LIMINE TO PREVENT PLAINTIFFS FROM
INTRODUCING IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY
At 9:26 p.m. on May 14, the Saturday night before trial, Defendants sought
leave to file an untimely motion in limine. The premise offered for this
extraordinary relief is the false suggestion that Plaintiffs’ trial brief (filed on April
29) and their opposition to another motion in limine (filed May 9) revealed for the
first time that Plaintiffs “planned to present evidence on the issue of market harm.”
Defs.’ Mot., Docket No. 313 at 1. The unjustifiable timing of the motion is hardly
879316.1

counterbalanced by its merit, of which there is none. Without even the pretense of
legal support, Defendants assert incorrectly that proof of market harm requires
expert testimony and that Plaintiffs’ lay witnesses should be precluded from
testifying as to the adverse impact on their businesses of the ongoing infringement
at GSU. Because Defendants’ motion is both untimely and baseless, it should be
denied.
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
I.

PLAINTIFFS TIMELY DISCLOSED THE EVIDENCE OF MARKET
HARM THEY INTEND TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL
Last December, Plaintiffs supplemented their responses to several of

Defendants’ interrogatories pursuant to the Court’s November 5, 2010 Order. In
those supplemental responses, Plaintiffs disclosed the evidence they intended to
offer at trial on the issue of market harm. For example, in response to Defendants’
Interrogatory No. 15, which asked Plaintiffs to identify “the amount of harm in
U.S. dollars that the markets or potential market for Plaintiffs’ Copyrights have
suffered as a result of the posting of excerpts of works covered by Plaintiffs’
Copyrights on ERes, uLearn, and/or course and faculty websites at GSU from
April 2005 to the present,” Plaintiffs identified all four of the witnesses Plaintiffs
will call at trial (Frank Smith, Niko Pfund, Carol Richman, and Tracey
Armstrong), and they directed Defendants to summary judgment declarations filed
879316.1

2 

by knowledgeable employees of each Plaintiff as illustrative of the market harm
testimony those witnesses would offer at trial. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Responses
and Objections to Defendants’ First and Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs
at No. 15, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiffs also referenced the portions of
several of their previous submissions, including Plaintiffs’ extensive summary
judgment briefing, that explained in detail the legal and factual basis for Plaintiffs’
contention that the ongoing, systematic copyright infringement at GSU is harming
the market for their works. Id.
Further, in response to another of Defendants’ interrogatories, Plaintiffs
identified numerous specific documents of the sort they will introduce at trial to
show market harm, including financial information about each Plaintiff and
licensing and permissions data for the specific works at issue in this case. Id. at
No. 17. Those documents, and others, are included on Plaintiffs’ trial exhibit list,
and to the extent Defendants wished to object to them (or to file a motion in limine
as to them), they had ample opportunity to do so.
In short, Defendants’ eleventh-hour assertion that they were surprised by
Plaintiffs’ decision not to rely solely on the testimony of Debra Mariniello to show
market harm is not credible. Because Plaintiffs thoroughly briefed the issue at the
summary judgment stage, Defendants have known for well over a year the legal
879316.1

3 

basis for Plaintiffs’ market harm arguments, and through Plaintiffs’ supplemental
interrogatory responses, Defendants have had the names of the potential fact
witnesses Plaintiffs could call on this issue for over six months. Defendants’
motion is therefore untimely. It would, if granted, severely prejudice Plaintiffs’
ability to present their case beginning on Tuesday, and on that basis alone it should
be denied.
II.

EXPERT TESTIMONY IS NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW MARKET
HARM
Defendants’ proposed motion also fails on the merits. Defendants do not

cite any authority for the proposition that copyright market harm must be
established through an expert witness. In fact, as Plaintiffs explained in their
opposition brief to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Debra J. Mariniello as an
Expert, courts routinely find copyright market harm without expert testimony.
Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Debra J.
Mariniello as an Expert, Docket No. 135 at 16-20.
All Plaintiffs are required to show to establish market harm is that “the effect
of [Defendants’] use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work,” 17 U.S.C. § 107(4) (emphasis added) – i.e., “whether unrestricted and
widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a

879316.1

4 

substantially adverse impact on the potential market.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs intend to make this showing at trial by offering testimony from
three (non-expert) Plaintiff witnesses intimately familiar with their businesses and
the academic market to establish the adverse impact that a continuation and
proliferation nationally of GSU’s practices would have on the viability of
Plaintiffs’ businesses. Plaintiffs also intend to offer testimony from the CEO of the
Copyright Clearance Center, who will establish, among other things, that there is a
viable and efficient permissions market for the works of publishers, including
Plaintiffs, authorizing the very sorts of copying activities that are involved in this
lawsuit.
There is ample precedent for evaluating copyright market harm without
expert testimony. For example, in its analysis of fair use factor four, the Sixth
Circuit in Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Servs., Inc., 99 F.3d
1381 (6th Cir. 1996), found that “most of the copyshops that compete with
[defendant] in the sale of coursepacks pay permission fees for the privilege of
duplicating and selling excerpts from copyrighted works”; that “[t]he three
plaintiffs together have been collecting permission fees at a rate approaching
$500,000 a year”; and that “[i]f copyshops across the nation were to start doing
879316.1

5 

what the defendants have been doing here, this revenue stream would shrivel and
the potential value of the copyrighted works of scholarship published by the
plaintiffs would be diminished accordingly.” Princeton Univ. Press, 99 F.3d at
1387 (emphasis added). The court did not require expert testimony to reach that
straightforward, commonsense conclusion concerning likely market harm.
Similarly, in American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d
Cir. 1995), the Second Circuit pointed to the existence of “a viable market” for
licensing the rights to the journal articles in question; found it “appropriate that
potential licensing revenues for photocopying be considered in a fair use analysis”;
and affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiff publishers’ revenues
would “increase significantly” if Texaco’s fair use defense were rejected and
Texaco were required to pay for the right to reproduce the plaintiffs’ articles. 60
F.3d at 929-30. No expert testimony was deemed necessary.
This Court should reach a similar conclusion after trial based on non-expert
testimony and documentary evidence that will provide the Court with ample
grounds for making the necessary findings of market harm to reject Defendants’
fair use defense and to award Plaintiffs injunctive relief.

879316.1

6 

CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiffs timely disclosed the witnesses and evidence on which
they intend to rely to show market harm, and because there is no requirement that
copyright market harm be established through expert testimony, Plaintiffs
respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants’ motion for leave to file an
untimely motion in limine.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May, 2011.
/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, Georgia 30309
[phone]
R. Bruce Rich (pro hac vice)
Randi Singer (pro hac vice)
Jonathan Bloom (pro hac vice)
Todd D. Larson (pro hac vice)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

879316.1

7 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(D), I hereby certify that this document complies
with the font and point selections set forth in Local Rule 5.1. This document was
prepared in Times New Roman 14 point font.
/s/ John H. Rains IV
John H. Rains IV

879316.1

8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day filed the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PREVENT PLAINTIFFS FROM INTRODUCING
IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY with the Clerk of Court using the
CM/ECF filing system which will send e-mail notification of such filing to
opposing counsel as follows:
Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq.
John W. Harbin, Esq.
Natasha H. Moffitt, Esq.
Kristen A. Swift, Esq.
C. Suzanne Johnson, Esq.
Mary Katherine Bates, Esq.
KING & SPALDING
1180 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Katrina M. Quicker, Esq.
Richard W. Miller, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Anthony B. Askew, Esq.
MCKEON, MEUNIER, CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC
817 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 900
Atlanta, Georgia 30308

879316.1

9 

Mary Jo Volkert, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney General
40 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
This 16th day of May, 2011.

/s/ John H. Rains IV
John H. Rains IV

879316.1

10 

EXHIBIT A

BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3900 ONE ATLANTIC CENTER
1201 WEST PEACHTREE STREET, N.W.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309·3417
[phone]

TELECOPIER [phone]

JOHN H. RAINS IV

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER

[phone]
[e-mail]

December 10,2010

VIA HAND DELIVERY
Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq.
King & Spalding LLP
1180 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Re:

Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Mark P. Becker, et al.
United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia
Civil Action File No. 1:08-CV-1425-0DE

Dear Steve:
Pursuant to the terms of the November 5, 2010 Scheduling Order in the above-referenced
case and the parties' agreements concerning supplemental discovery, enclosed please find
documents bearing the following Bates ranges: CUPXOOOOOl -289, OUPXOOOOOl - 1134,
SAGEXOOOOO 1 - 1089. This production is comprised of both electronic and paper documents.
Also in enclosed are Plaintiff's Supplemental Interrogatory Responses. Please let me know if
you have any questions.

jlh<h
John H. Rains IV

Enclosures
cc:

Edward B. Krugman, Esq. (w/out enclosures)
Todd Larson, Esq. (via e-mail; w/out enclosures)

826215.1

EXHIBIT A - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA,
ATLANTA DIVISION

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, INC.,
and SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1425-0DE
Plaintiffs,

- vs.MARK P. BECKER, in his official
capacity as Georgia State University
President, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANTS' FIRST AND SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Order of this Court dated November 5, 2010, Cambridge University Press, Oxford
University Press, Inc., and Sage Publications, Inc. ("Plaintiffs"),.hereby
supplement their October 14, 2008 Responses and Objections to Defendants' First
Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (the "Initial Responses"), their February 9, 2009
and April2, 2010 Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set

826224.1

EXHIBIT A - 2

oflnterrogatories to Plaintiffs (the "Supplemental Responses"), and their June 12,
2009 Responses and Objections to Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories to
Plaintiffs (the "Second Responses"). The following supplemental responses are
made subject to, and incorporate by reference, the prefatory paragraphs, General
Objections, and Objections to Definitions and Instructions stated in the Initial
Responses, and the Specific Objections stated in the Supplemental Responses and
Second Responses.
SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

Interrogatory No. 2
Identify each of Plaintiffs' copyrights that you allege GSU has
infringed, including, but not limited to, indicating each certificate of registration by
registration number for each such copyright.
Response to Interrogatory No.2
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Initial and Supplemental
Responses to this Interrogatory and all objections included or referenced therein.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to
Docket No. 228, Plaintiffs' response to the Court's orders of August 11 and 12,
2010 ("Plaintiffs' August Response"), as well as to Attachment A to this
document, which lists, to the extent available, the registration number for (1) each
work in Plaintiffs' August Response, and (2) each additional infringed work

826224.1

2

EXHIBIT A - 3

identified on the updated ERes reports produced by Defendants on November 5,
2010 for the 2009 Maymester, Summer 2009 term, and Fall2009 term
(collectively, the "Subject Works"). Plaintiffs also state that they are producing
copies of all registration certificates for the Subject Works that could be located
after a reasonable search, and reserve the right to supplement that production as
additional certificates are located or copies are obtained from the U.S. Copyright
Office. Plaintiffs further state that given the present focus on works infringed after
commencement of the litigation, Plaintiffs are seeking expedited registration of
certain Subject Works not yet registered and will provide registration certificates
and documents related to such registrations as soon as they are available.
Interrogatory No. 3
Describe in detail how and when you obtained ownership of Plaintiffs'
copyrights and identify each Person with knowledge or information regarding your
ownership of such copyrights.
Response to Interrogatory No. 3
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Initial Response to this
Interrogatory and all objections included or referenced therein. Subject to and
without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs also state that they are producing the
actual agreements by which they came to own or control the copyrights in the
Subject Works (or by which they became exclusive licensees) and reserve the right

826224.1

3

EXHIBIT A - 4

to supplement that production as additional agreements are located. Plaintiffs also
refer Defendants to Attachment A, which lists, to the extent available, the persons
with knowledge or information regarding Plaintiffs' ownership/control of the
Subject Works; in instances where the person who participated directly in
negotiating with the author ofthe Subject Work cannot be identified, or has since
left the Plaintiff company, Attachment A identifies the person(s) at the Plaintiff
company with general knowledge and information as to the company's author
contracts and contracting process.
Interrogatory No. 6

For each of Plaintiffs' copyrights for which a certificate of registration
has not issued, please state whether an application for registration was made to the
Copyright Office for each such copyright and the date(s) of such application.
Response to Interrogatory No. 6

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Initial Response to this
Interrogatory and all objections included or referenced therein. Subject to and
without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Attachment A,
which indicates, in the penultimate colunm, the works for which a U.S. copyright
registration number has not been assigned to date. Plaintiffs state that given the
present focus on works infringed after commencement of the litigation, they are
seeking expedited registration of those works and will provide registration
826224.1

4
EXHIBIT A - 5

certificates and documents related to such registrations as soon as they are
available. Plaintiffs note, however, that no applications have been or will be made
for those works identified on Attachment A as "First Published in the United
Kingdom."
Interrogatory No.9

Identify each Person to whom a license to reproduce in whole or in
part the works that are the subject of Plaintiffs' copyrights has been granted.
Response to Interrogatory No. 9

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Initial and Supplemental
Responses to this Interrogatory and all objections included or referenced therein.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs refer
Defendants to CUPX 000237- CUPX 000289, OUPX 000643- OUPX 000651,
OUPX 000652- OUPX 000800, SAGEX 000454-

SAGEX 000501, and

SAGEX 000503- SAGEX 001043, which provide the requested information for
each Subject Work.
Interrogatory No. 15

Identify the amount of harm in U.S. dollars that the markets or
potential market for Plaintiffs' Copyrights have suffered as a result of the posting
of excerpts of works covered by Plaintiffs' Copyrights on ERes, uLeam, and/or
course and faculty websites at GSU from April 2005 to the present.

826224.1

5

EXHIBIT A - 6

Response to Interrogatory No. 15
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their response to this Interrogatory
from the Second Responses and all objections included or referenced therein.
(References in the Second Response to Plaintiffs' "response to Interrogatory 17"
should be understood to encompass and refer as well to Plaintiffs' supplemental
response to Interrogatory 17 below, which lists, among other things, financial
documents identifying Plaintiffs' revenues for book sales, licensing, and rights and
permissions for the Subject Works.) Plaintiffs also refer Defendants to the
following filings and testimony that further describe how Plaintiffs have been
harmed by Defendants' activities, including infringement ofthe Subject Works:

• Plaintiffs' August Response, Docket No. 228;
• Declaration of Sara van Valkenberg, SAGE Publications, Exhibit 3 ISO
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (~~ 8-16, 3343); deposition testimony of Ms. van Valkenberg and anticipated testimony
of Ms. van Valkenberg and/or Carol Richman, Director of Licensing for
SAGE Publications;
• Declaration ofNiko Pfund, Oxford University Press, Exhibit 5 ISO
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (~~ 7-8, 17-20,
34-44); deposition and anticipated testimony of Mr. Pfund and/or John
Challice, V.P. and Publisher for OUP Higher Ed. Division;
• Declaration of Frank Smith, Cambridge University Press, Exhibit 4 ISO
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (~~ 30-42);
deposition and anticipated testimony of Mr. Smith;
• Declaration of Steven Sheffrin, Exhibit 9 ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for
826224.1

6
EXHIBIT A - 7

Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (in its entirety); deposition and
anticipated testimony of Mr. Sheffrin;
• Affidavit of Debra J. Mariniello (attaching expert report), Exhibit 10 ISO
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 143 (pp. 16-19,2022 of expert report); deposition testimony of Ms. Mariniello and anticipated
testimony ofMs. Mariniello and/or Tracey Armstrong, CEO of Copyright
Clearance Center;
• Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Exclude Debra J. Mariniello as an Expert, Docket No. 134 (pp. 8-20);
• Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law ISO Motion for Summary Judgment,
Docket No. 142, (pp. 10-12, 16-21, 32-35, 54-58);
• Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1 Statement ofFacts ISO Their Motion for
Summary Judgment, Docket No. 165 (pp. 16-20,33-49, 64-76);
• Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment, Docket No. 185 (pp. 4-9);
• Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law In Further Support of Their Motion
for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 206 (pp. 12-16, 18-19).
Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response as new documents are
identified, and after reviewing Defendants' production of documents (including
course syllabi, fair-use checklists, etc.) related to the Subject Works.
Interrogatory No. 16
Identify the amount of revenue in U.S. dollars that Plaintiffs have lost
as a result of the postings of excerpts of works covered by Plaintiffs Copyrights
on Eres, uLeam, and/or course and faculty websites from April 2005 to the present.
Response to Interrogatory No. 16
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses and objections to
826224.1

7
EXHIBIT A - 8

Interrogatories No. 15 above and 17 below, as well as their response to this
Interrogatory from the Second Responses and all objections included or referenced
therein.
Interrogatory No. 17
Identify all facts and all documents (by bates-number) that support
Plaintiffs' contention that Plaintiffs' have suffered market harm for the works
covered by Plaintiffs' Copyrights as a result of the posting of excerpts of such
works on Eres, uLearn, and/or course and faculty websites at GSU from April 2005
to the present.
Response to Interrogatory No. 17
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their response to this Interrogatory
from the Second Responses and all objections included or referenced therein.
(References in the Second Responses to Plaintiffs' "responses and objections to
Interrogatory No. 15" should be understood to encompass and refer as well to
Plaintiffs' supplemental response to Interrogatory 15 above.) Subject to and
without waving said objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Plaintiffs' August
Response (which detailed lost permissions fees and book sale prices associated
with infringement of the Subject Works), as well as all documents produced by
Defendants and Plaintiffs in this proceeding, including in particular (a) the
documents listed in Plaintiffs' response to this Interrogatory from the Second
Response and (b) the following recently produced documents related to the Subject
826224.1

8

EXHIBIT A - 9

Works:
•

GSU Eres Reports

o GaState0064598-65065.
• Plaintiffs' Revenue/Financial Documents

o CUPX 000170- CUPX 000236;
o OUPX 000639; OUPX 000640- OUPX 000642;
o SAGEX 000502; SAGEX 000414- SAGEX 000453,
001044.

SAGEX

• Plaintiffs' Revenue from Licensing and Permissions (attributable to CCC
.and in-house permissions department activities)

o CUPX 000237- CUPX 000289;
o OUPX 000643- OUPX 000651; OUPX 000652- OUPX 000800;
o SAGEX 000454- SAGEX 000501; SAGEX 000503- SAGEX 001043.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response as new documents are
identified, and after reviewing Defendants' production of documents (including
course syllabi, fair-use checklists, etc.) related to the Subject Works.
Interrogatory No. 18

Identify all facts and all documents (by bates-number) that support
Plaintiffs' contention that "Georgia State's ongoing unauthorized digital
distribution of Plaintiffs' copyrighted materials is directly substituting both for
student purchases or [sic] copyrighted books and for 'coursepaks' or 'copy pocks"
[sic].

826224.1

9

EXHIBIT A - 10

Response to Interrogatory No. 18
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses and objections to
Interrogatories No. 15 and 17 above.

Interrogatory No. 19
Identify all documents (by bates-number) that support Plaintiffs'
contention that "Plaintiffs, authors, and the publishing community at large will
continue to face a certain, substantial, and continuing loss of revenue."

Response to Interrogatory No. 19
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses and objections to
Interrogatory No. 17 above.
Respectfully submitted this lOth day ofDecember.

Ed
.Krugman
kru [e-mail]
Georgia Bar No. 429927
John H. Rains IV
[e-mail]
Georgia Bar No. 556052
BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street NW
Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
R. Bruce Rich (pro hac vice)
826224.1

10

EXHIBIT A - 11

Randi Singer (pro hac vice)
Jonathan Bloom (pro hac vice)
Todd D. Larson (pro hac vice)
WElL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

826224.1

11

EXHIBIT A - 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the
foregoing PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST AND SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS to be served as indicated:
Via Electronic Mail and Hand Delivery

Anthony B. Askew, Esq.
Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq.
Kristen A. Swift, Esq.
C. Suzanne Johnson, Esq.
King & Spalding
1180 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Via Electronic Mail and First Class Mail

Kristina M. Quicker, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
Mary Jo Volkert, Esq.
AssistantS. Attorney General
40 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
This lOth day of December, 2010.

826224.1

12
EXHIBIT A - 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA,
ATLANTA DNISION

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 1:0.8-CV-1425-0DE

-vs. ~
MARKP. BECKER, in his official capacity as
Georgia State University President, et al.,
Defendants.
VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY ANSWERS

I, Barbara Cohen, hereby declare pursuant to section1746 of title 28 of the
United States Code:
I am the General Counsel tor Oxford University Press, Inc. I am
authorized to execute the answers to interrogatories on behalf of Oxford University Press,
Inc. I have read the supplemental answers to Interrogatories No. 2, 3, 6, 9, and 1.5-19.
These responses are based on information provided by multiple persons, and neither I nor
any other single individual has personal knowledge of all the information set forth in the
responses or considered ih their preparation. The responses are also necessarily limited
by the records and information still in existence and discovered in the course of this
action. Subject to these limitations, to the best ofmy knowledge, information and belief, I
have determined that the supplemental answers to Interrogatories No. 2, 3, 6, 9, and 1519 are true and correct to the extent they provide information related to Oxford
University Press, Inc.
I verify, under penalty of peijury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on December 10, 2010.

~~

Barbara Cohen

US_ACTJVE:\43577694\01\38985.0007

EXHIBIT A - 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA,
ATLANTA DIVISION

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1425-0DE

- vs.MARK P. BECKER, in his official capacity as
Georgia State University President, et al.,
Defendants.
VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY ANSWERS

I, Sara van Valkenburg, hereby declare pursuant to section 1746 of title 28
of the United States Code:
I am the Contracts Manager for SAGE Publications, Inc. I am authorized
to execute the answers to interrogatories on behalf of SAGE Publications. I have read the
supplemental answers to Interrogatories No. 2, 3, 6, 9, and 15-19. These responses are
based on information provided by multiple persons, and neither I nor any other single
individual has personal knowledge of all the information set forth in the responses or
considered in their preparation. The responses are also necessarily limited by the records
and information still in existence and discovered in the course of this action. Subject to
these limitations, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, I have determined
that the supplemental answers to Interrogatories No.2, 3, 6, 9, and 15-19 are true and
correct to the extent they provide information related to SAGE Publications, Inc.
I verify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on December 10,2010.

US_ACTIVE:\4357769010 1\)8985.0007,

EXHIBIT A - 15

EXHIBIT A

138129.1

EXHIBIT A - 16

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
2009 Maymester

58-98

Flue-ncy ActiVities for Language

I

T.,,.,...hinn

Cambridge

Selections

for

AL8480-

Classroom
Practices in
Teaching ESUEFL

Murphy

of Short Activities

EXHIBIT A - 17

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
2009 Maymester

AL8480Classroom
Practices in
Teaching ESUEFL

Murphy

First published in
United Kingdom

217-228

12

Qualitative/
Interpretive
Research in

First published in

United Kingdom

EPS8500-

Kaufmann

Education I

SAGE

717-732
733-768
923-948

Qualitative Research (2nd edition)

2

EXHIBIT A - 18

78

TX 5-220-475

& Digital Sales Manager

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
2009 Maymester

EPS8500-

Qualitative/
Interpretive
Research in
Education I

391-406

16

Kaufmann

Lenses,

SAGE

Sara van Valkenburg,
Contracts Manager

EPS8510-

Qualitative
Research in
Eduation II

923-948

Kaufmann

United Kingdom

TX4-032-771
in

II

3

EXHIBIT A - 19

IRights & Digital Sales Manager

IContracts

Manager

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
2009 Maymester

Management in

ITransition The
Economies:
Czech Republic &
Hungary

Marni Kahn

SOCI3216and Society

Brown

Gendered Society Reader

Oxford

Editor, Medical
Learning

additional
chapter

774-782
812-819
892-900
901-913
914-926
121-137

to

Challice, Publisher, Higher
!Education

17

Cooper, Senior
!commissioning Editor,
Humanities & Social Sciences

4

EXHIBIT A - 20

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
2009 Maymester

5

EXHIBIT A - 21

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Summer2009

EPRS8510Qualitative
Research in

Sara van Valkenburg,
Contracts Manager

Kaufmann

Education II

& Digital Sales Manager

of Feminist Research:

155-172

SAGE

18

EPS8280Anthropology of

32

Esposito

Education

13

6

EXHIBIT A - 22

TX 6-175-287

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Summer2009

73-98

26

TX

pending

pending

MUS8860Romantic Period
1800-1900

I

Orr

Companion to Schumann

Cambridge

I

Unspecified

I Unspecified I Unspecified
Cooper, Senior
Commissioning Editor,
Humanities & Social Sciences

7

EXHIBIT A - 23

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Summer 2009

Cambridge

Oxford

MUS8860Romantic Period
1800-1900

1

1 (partial)

1 (partial)

Orr

250-267

99-126

Oxford

and

tLearnino and the

8

EXHIBIT A - 24

28

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

AAS3000African-American

Dixon

Family

partial

104-120

chapter)

AH4900-

Materiality of
Egyptian Painting

9

EXHIBIT A - 25

pending

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

Registration
pending

AL8550Second Language
Evaluation and
Assessment

Linthe, Senior
Editor, English
Teaching
Kim
100-145

pending

Linthe, Senior
Editor, English
Teaching
Movements, 1918-1939

ANTH4440Epidemiology and
A nth ropoIogy

I McCombie

pending

.
.
.
Evolution of Infectious D1sease

TX4-319-137

10

EXHIBIT A - 26

· .. -·-·.r
.
.
Jeremy Lew1s, Ed1tor,

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

!

Cyborgs in
American Culture
_ Ryan, Senior
Commissioning Editor,
Humanities & Social Sciences!

I

11

EXHIBIT A - 27

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

Sherith Pankratz, Editor,
Higher Education

to Qualitative
A Reader on Theory
Practice

2
Methods

TX 5-459-984

chapter
Sara van Valkenburg,
Contracts Manager

EPRS8500Qualitative/
Interpretive
Research in
Education I

Kaufmann

71-107
155-172
515-534

of Narrative Inquiry:

IMapping a Methodology

35-76

SAGE

75

TX 7-031-746

42

Sara van Valkenburg,
Contracts Manager

109-138
357-373
443-465
547-557
733-768
915-932
959-978

12

EXHIBIT A - 28

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

Interpretive
Research in
Education I

Qualitative

I

Research in
Education Ill

EPRS8520-

Qualitative
Research in
Education Ill

Sara van Valkenburg,
Contracts Manager

Esposito

189-196

Research

13

EXHIBIT A - 29

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3

Fall2009

of

Understanding and
\ Facilitating Adult

Biological, Clinical and Cultural
Perspectives

Developmental

pending

Psychology:
Personality and
Socialization

566-588

ISeminar in

Conceptual Development

23

Registration
pending

pending

FILM4750Film Theory and
Criticism

Peter Labella, formerly Editor

Barker

Higher Education

345-355
716-724

14

EXHIBIT A - 30

John Challice, Publisher,
Higher Education

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

in American Cultural

Cambridge
pending

Beatrice Rehl, Publishing

IDirector. Humanities & Social

15

EXHIBIT A - 31

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3

Fa112009

+
Unspecified Unspecified
sections

MUS8840Baroque Music

First published in
United Kingdom

INiko Pfund, Publisher,

sections

Orr

Editor, Higher

16

EXHIBIT A - 32

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

Theoretical and
Philosophical
Foundations for

Moloney

541-556

16

21-53

33

PERS2001Comparative
Culture

Lasner

. Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy

17

EXHIBIT A - 33

TX 6-033-330

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

POLS8250-

Latin American
Politics

McCoy

Democracy in Latin

!America: Theories and Methods

Oxford

1 (partial)

Military Conflict and
International
Security

additional

91-112

chapter]

Religion, Morality,
and Film

Oxford
Religion in America

18

EXHIBIT A - 34

pending

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall 2009

I Gender and

Sherith Pankratz, Editor,
Higher Education

478-489

40

298-324
SOCI8030Social Theory I

Registration
pending

A00000236642

Sherith Pankratz, Editor,
Higher Education

Paperback

HaTVey

32-37
60-67

Branches Readings

19

EXHIBIT A - 35

12

TX 6-895-280

Pankratz, Editor,
Education

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

Challenges of the Third Age:

Meaning and Purpose in Later Life

TX 5-506-288

Oxford
SOCI8116Sociology of Aging

Perkins

29

First
United Kingdom

Maura Roessner, Editor,
Medical

Qualitative Research (2nd edition)

SW8200-

Evaluation and
Technology

Sara van Valkenburg,
Contracts Manager

Ohmer
New Century Text

TX 4-435-019

(3rd edition)

20

EXHIBIT A - 36

Attachment A: Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2 and 3
Fall2009

Sara van Valkenburg,
Contracts Manager

Publisher,

to the Interpretation of
Materials Researching
materials (2007)

WST8004Feminist
Methodologies

EPY7090Learning and the
Learner

Tal burt

& Digital Sales

1

15-28
135-178

partial
chapter)

200-219

Minds

58

39

Bossert, Editor, Medical

pending

Marx, Nietzsche,
Freud

21

EXHIBIT A - 37