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.--

EXHIBIT 3

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.

DECLARATION OF ANDERS P. GANTEN

I, Anders P. Ganten, hereby testify and state by declaration as follows:
1.

I began working at Matthew Bender and Company, a member of the

LexisNexis Group (“LexisNexis”) in August of 2004. I assumed my current position
as Senior Director Government Content Acquisition 2009
2.

I make the following declaration on personal knowledge and belief. If

called upon to testify to the statements in this Declaration, I could and would
competently testify to these facts.

3.

LexisNexis editors create original judicial summary annotations in the

O.C.G.A. using the procedures as described in paragraphs 4 through 8.
4.

In correlation with summary and headnote creation, LexisNexis

attorney case law editors create substantive and descriptive original case notes,
including fact-specific case notes and black-letter-law case notes. Editors analyze
the relevant opinion text and endeavor to provide researchers checking statutes,
court rules, and constitutional references a snapshot of how that provision was
applied or construed in case law. When a provision has been applied in an opinion
without significant discussion or construction, editors additionally create citationonly case notes to alert researchers that the provision was cited.
5.

Editors pull an opinion from their assigned task list and open the case

in the editing tool (Fab Editor). Once editors have identified the cited and
referenced provisions, the editors determine the noteworthiness of the provisions
by analyzing whether the provision has been applied or construed, and deciding
whether the court’s discussion is relevant to an understanding of the provision.
Editors additionally evaluate whether a provision falls into a limited non-annotated
category.
6.

Noteworthy provisions are verified online to ensure the court’s cited

reference is valid. Editors check the editorial guidelines and jurisdictional
2

instructions to determine the specific case note requirements for the jurisdiction.
For Georgia case notes, inter alia, editors utilize state-specific cite formats and,
with limited exceptions, omit gender-specific pronouns.
7.

The Lexis Nexis case note creation tool (NoteWriter), part of

FabEditor, is utilized to create the case note. Editors select the appropriate
jurisdiction, provision type, and section number for case note placement. The
appropriate publication status for the opinion is assigned to the case note. For factspecific case note creation, editors summarize the court's application of the law to
the particular facts of the case. For new rules of law, editors create a black letter
law case note by summarizing the court's discussion of the provision and relaying
the rule of general applicability as it is relevant to the court's resolution of the
parties' dispute. Editors may write the black letter rules of law case notes in a factspecific combination format. Where there is limited discussion of a provision, a
citation-only note is assigned to the provision to which it pertains.
8.

The case note text is checked for accuracy, style guideline

compliance, size requirements, and jurisdictional requirement compliance. For
full case notes, the most on-point and specific classification is assigned to the case
note from the Lexis Nexis taxonomy scheme for internal indexing. Additionally,
the most on-point and specific catchline is selected from existing catchlines, or
3

created as a new catchline, for jurisdictional-specific indexing. The editor
proofreads and edits the note and then marks it as complete. With the completion
of additional case law enhancement, the case note is transferred to the Statutory
Unit for finalization and online and print product publication.
9.

One example of a judicial summary created by LexisNexis using the

above procedures is provided in paragraphs 10 through 15. As indicated below,
the case of Cho Carwash Property, LLC. v. Everett, (326 Ga. App. 6 (2014)) was
selected by a LexisNexis editor, summarized, and coordinated with O.C.G.A. 34-9260 and then published in the 2014 edition of the O.C.G.A.
10.

As an editor read the Cho Carwash Property, LLC. v. Everett case for

legal holdings and analysis for summary and headnote processing, the editor
correspondingly read for cited provisions and statutory references. The first
provision cited in the instant case is O.C.G.A. § 34-9-260, the compensation
schedule related to calculating an injured claimant’s average weekly wage. The
court initially specifies that the employer does not dispute that subsection (3) is the
applicable provision for calculating the claimant’s average weekly wage in the
instant case.
11.

The editor analyzed the discussion of whether the lower court erred in

applying the statute by using the claimant’s training schedule for the compensation
4

determination and whether evidence supports the calculation. In deciding
noteworthiness, the editor made a determination that the court relied upon
application of the statute to rule that the some evidence supports the administrative
law judge's calculation of the average weekly wage.
12.

Once the editor had an understanding of the provision application, the

editor began the technical aspects of creation of the note. The editor checked the
provision online to ensure that the cite in the opinion was accurate and the note
was properly placed. The editor opened the NoteWriter tool in FabEditor and
created a new note, selecting Georgia as the jurisdiction, and 34-9-260 as the
proper code section placement. The editor also checked the publication status of
the case and marked the note as published in the editing tool.
13.

In creating the case note text, the editor avoided editorializing and

tracked the language of the court to create an original summary of the court’s
verification of the proper weekly wage calculation. The editor summarized the
court’s compensation holding as follows:
Award of workers' compensation benefits was upheld because there
was some evidence to support the administrative law judge's
calculation of the claimant's average weekly wage under O.C.G.A. §
34-9-260(3) based on the claimant's testimony that the claimant was
supposed to work from the car wash's opening until its close.

5

14.

The editor used Lexis Advance to select the most specific and on-

point catchline to index the note for print and online publication. The editor
marked the catchline as an existing catchline in the editing tool. Additionally, the
editor assigned the most specific on-point classification from the LexisNexis
taxonomy scheme to index the annotation internally. The editor proofread the note
and made any necessary edits before marking the note as completed.
15.

The editor continued reading the opinion for additional cited

provisions. When reaching the end of the opinion, the editor did a final opinion
skim to ensure all provisions are accounted for and all necessary case notes were
completed. When additional case law enhancement was completed, the case note
was sent to the Statutory unit for any final edits and placement in print and online
products.
16.

Further, a LexisNexis editor selected each judicial decision summary,

editor’s note, and summary of an opinion of the Attorney General of Georgia for
inclusion in the O.C.G.A. and then coordinated the selection with a particular
O.C.G.A. statute.
17.

When multiple summaries or editor’s notes were coordinated with a

single code section in the O.C.G.A., LexisNexis arranged in a particular order.

6

18.

Therefore, each O.C.G.A. publication contains original and creative

compilations of summaries of judicial decisions, editor’s notes, summaries of
opinions of the Attorney General of Georgia, summaries of research references and
compilations thereof.

May 17, 2016
Anders P. Ganten

7