Code Revision Commission et al v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

Filing 30

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Code Revision Commission, State of Georgia. (Attachments: #1 Brief in support, #2 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4)(Pavento, Lisa) --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.--

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CODE REVISION COMMISSION on behalf of and for the benefit of THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA, and THE STATE OF GEORGIA, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-02594-MHC PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant the Code Revision Commission, on behalf of and for the benefit of the General Assembly of Georgia and the State of Georgia (“Commission”), files this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 56.1 N.D. Ga., with respect to the claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint relating to the 2014 edition of the OCGA. As more fully discussed in the accompanying Memorandum of Law and exhibits thereto, and further supported by the parties’ Stipulation of Facts (Dkt. No. 17), Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as follows: 1. Each of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works identified in Exhibit A to the Stipulation of Facts (Dkt. 17), numbered 1-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-71 (“Copyrighted Works”) are original and creative works of authorship subject to a valid copyright; 2. The copyright in each of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Works is owned by Plaintiff through a valid work-for-hire agreement with the authors whom are employed by LexisNexis; 3. Each of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Works was the subject of a U.S. Copyright Registration at the time this lawsuit was filed; 4. Defendant directly infringed each of the Copyrighted Works by copying each of those works in its entirety, and posting a copy of each of those works on the publicly accessible websites https://law.resource.org and www.archive.org; and 5. Defendant’s direct infringement of each of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Works is not encompassed by the fair use defense. WHEREFORE, there being no genuine issue of material fact and being entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues addressed herein, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant its motion as to Plaintiff’s counts of copyright 2 infringement relating to the 2014 edition of the OCGA described above, pursuant to Rule 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1. Respectfully submitted, this 17th day of May, 2016. /s/Lisa C. Pavento Lisa C. Pavento (G.A. Bar: 246698) Anthony B. Askew (G.A. Bar: 025300) Warren Thomas (G.A. Bar: 164714) Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1300 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Phone: 404-645-7700 Fax: 404-645-7707 lpavento@mcciplaw.com taskew@mcciplaw.com wthomas@mcciplaw.com Counsel for the Plaintiff, Code Revision Commission on behalf of and for the benefit of the General Assembly of Georgia, and the State of Georgia 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 17, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which constitutes service of the filed document on all counsel of record in this proceeding under LR 5.1(A)(3), N.D. Ga. By: /s/Lisa C. Pavento Lisa C. Pavento (G.A. Bar: 246698) Anthony B. Askew (G.A. Bar: 025300) Warren Thomas (G.A. Bar: 164714) Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1300 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Phone: 404-645-7700 Fax: 404-645-7707 lpavento@mcciplaw.com taskew@mcciplaw.com wthomas@mcciplaw.com Counsel for the Plaintiff, Code Revision Commission on behalf of and for the benefit of the General Assembly of Georgia, and the State of Georgia 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?