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

Filing 51

Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Orders and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #49 Notice of Appeal. (kac)

4months,APPEAL,CLOSED,PROTO

U.S. District Court
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−02594−RWS
Code Revision Commission et al v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge Richard W. Story
Cause: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement

Date Filed: 07/21/2015
Date Terminated: 04/07/2017
Jury Demand: Defendant
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Code Revision Commission
for the Benefit of and
on behalf of
General Assembly of Georgia

represented by Anthony B. Askew
Meunier Carlin &Curfman, LLC −Atl
Suite 1300
999 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
404−645−7700
Fax: 404−645−7707
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Pavento
Meunier Carlin &Curfman, LLC −Atl
Suite 1300
999 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
404−645−7700
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren James Thomas
Meunier Carlin &Curfman, LLC − ATL
Suite 1300
999 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
404−645−7700
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
State of Georgia

represented by Anthony B. Askew
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Pavento
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren James Thomas

1

(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

represented by Elizabeth Hannah Rader
Alston &Bird, LLP− DC
The Atlantic Building
950 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004−1404
202−239−3008
Email: [e-mail]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Parker LaFantano
Alston &Bird, LLP − Atl
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309−3424
404−881−7811
Fax: 404−881−7777
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D. Rosenberg
Alston &Bird, LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309−3424
404−881−7461
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Matthew Bender &Company, Inc
Troutman Sanders LLP
600 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 5200
Atlanta, GA 30308

represented by John M. Bowler
Troutman Sanders, LLP−ATL
Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200
600 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30308−2216
404−885−3190
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
State of Mississippi Joint Legislative
Committee,

represented by Lawrence Arthur Schemmel
Office of the Attorney General−MS
P.O. Box 1850
401 North West Street
Jackson, MS 39215

2

601−359−7600
Email: [e-mail]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle J. Hirsch
Office of the Attorney General−GA
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334−1300
404−463−8850
Fax: 404−651−5304
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Counter Claimant
Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

represented by Elizabeth Hannah Rader
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Parker LaFantano
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D. Rosenberg
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Counter Defendant
Code Revision Commission
for the Benefit of and

represented by Anthony B. Askew
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Pavento
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren James Thomas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant
State of Georgia

represented by Anthony B. Askew
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Pavento
(See above for address)

3

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren James Thomas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Counter Claimant
Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

represented by Elizabeth Hannah Rader
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Parker LaFantano
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D. Rosenberg
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Counter Defendant
Code Revision Commission
for the Benefit of and

represented by Anthony B. Askew
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Pavento
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren James Thomas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant
represented by Anthony B. Askew
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

State of Georgia

Lisa Pavento
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren James Thomas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed

#

Page Docket Text

4

07/21/2015

1

COMPLAINT filed by State of Georgia, Code Revision Commission. (Filing
fee $ 400 receipt number 113E−5942262.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2
Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Civil
Cover Sheet)(cem) Please visit our website at
http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions which
includes the Consent To Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate form. (Entered:
07/22/2015)

07/21/2015

2

Electronic Summons Issued as to Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (cem) (Entered:
07/22/2015)

07/22/2015

3

AO 121 Form mailed to the Register of Copyrights Office. (cem) (Entered:
07/22/2015)

07/22/2015

4

STANDING ORDER REGARDING CIVIL LITIGATION, Signed by Judge
Mark H. Cohen on 7/22/15. (jpa) (Entered: 07/22/2015)

07/24/2015

5

Return of Service Executed by State of Georgia, Code Revision Commission.
Public.Resource.Org, Inc. served on 7/24/2015, answer due 8/14/2015.
(Pavento, Lisa) (Entered: 07/24/2015)

09/14/2015

6

ANSWER to 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand ( Discovery ends on
2/11/2016.), COUNTERCLAIM against All Plaintiffs with Jury Demand by
Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit
G)(Rosenberg, Jason) Please visit our website at
http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered:
09/14/2015)

09/14/2015

7

Corporate Disclosure Statement by Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (Rosenberg,
Jason) Modified on 9/15/2015 to edit text (jpa). (Entered: 09/14/2015)

09/16/2015
09/16/2015

Clerks Notation re 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement reviewed by MHC. (jgs)
(Entered: 09/16/2015)
8

APPLICATION for Admission of Elizabeth Rader Pro Hac Vice (Application
fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−6046489)by Public.Resource.Org, Inc.,
Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. (Rosenberg, Jason) (Entered: 09/16/2015)

09/25/2015

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 8 APPLICATION for Admission of
Elizabeth Rader Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number
113E−6046489). Attorney Elizabeth Hannah Rader added appearing on behalf
of Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (pb) (Entered:
09/25/2015)

09/28/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 8 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
Elizabeth Rader by CRD by direction of the Court. Approved by Judge Mark
H. Cohen on 9/28/15. (jgs) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

09/29/2015

9

NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah Parker on behalf of Public.Resource.Org,
Inc. (Parker, Sarah) (Entered: 09/29/2015)

10/08/2015

10

ANSWER to 6 Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses by Code Revision
Commission, State of Georgia.(Askew, Anthony) Please visit our website at
http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered:
10/08/2015)

5

10/08/2015

11

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against
Public.Resource.Org, Inc., filed by State of Georgia, Code Revision
Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Askew, Anthony) Please visit our
website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/commonly−used−forms to obtain
Pretrial Instructions which includes the Consent To Proceed Before U.S.
Magistrate form. (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/14/2015

12

JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN filed by Code
Revision Commission, State of Georgia. (Askew, Anthony) (Entered:
10/14/2015)

10/15/2015

13

SCHEDULING ORDER: re: 12 Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan.
Discovery ends on 3/18/2016. Signed by Judge Mark H. Cohen on 10/15/15.
(jpa) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

10/19/2015

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Initial Disclosures by
Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (Rosenberg, Jason) Modified on 10/20/2015 to edit
filing attorney (jpa). (Entered: 10/19/2015)

10/20/2015

15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures by Code
Revision Commission, State of Georgia.(Thomas, Warren) (Entered:
10/20/2015)

10/22/2015

16

ANSWER to 11 Amended Complaint , COUNTERCLAIM against All
Plaintiffs by Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7
Exhibit G)(Rosenberg, Jason) Please visit our website at
http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered:
10/22/2015)

01/15/2016

17

STIPULATION of Facts by Code Revision Commission, State of Georgia.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10
Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Askew, Anthony)
(Entered: 01/15/2016)

02/10/2016

18

Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Code Revision Commission, State of
Georgia. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Protective Order)(Askew, Anthony)
(Entered: 02/10/2016)

02/12/2016

19

PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Mark H. Cohen on 2/12/16. (jpa)
(Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/16/2016

20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Responses and Objections to
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories by Public.Resource.Org, Inc..(Parker,
Sarah) (Entered: 02/16/2016)

02/16/2016

21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Responses and Objections to
Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Public.Resource.Org,
Inc..(Parker, Sarah) (Entered: 02/16/2016)

02/17/2016

22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Second
Set of Interrogatories by Public.Resource.Org, Inc..(Parker, Sarah) (Entered:
02/17/2016)

6

02/17/2016

23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Second
Request for Production of Documents by Public.Resource.Org, Inc..(Parker,
Sarah) (Entered: 02/17/2016)

02/18/2016

24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First
Set of Interrogatories by Code Revision Commission, State of
Georgia.(Askew, Anthony) (Entered: 02/18/2016)

02/18/2016

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First
Set of Requests for Production by Code Revision Commission, State of
Georgia.(Askew, Anthony) (Entered: 02/18/2016)

04/14/2016

26

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Consolidated Pretrial
Order by Code Revision Commission, State of Georgia. (Askew, Anthony)
(Entered: 04/14/2016)

04/15/2016

27

ORDER granting 26 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed
Consolidated Pretrial Order and parties shall comply with the following
schedule: Summary Judgment motions due 5/17/2016; Responses to Summary
Judgment motions due 21 days after service of the motion; Replies to such
responses due 14 days after service of the response and if necessary, the
Consolidated Pretrial Order shall be filed no later than 30 days after the entry
of the Court's ruling on the parties' motions for summary judgment. Signed by
Judge Mark H. Cohen on 4/15/2016. (bdb) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016

Summary Judgment Motions due by 5/17/2016. (bdb) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

05/17/2016

28

First MOTION for Leave to File An Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of
Plaintiff with Brief In Support by Matthew Bender &Company, Inc.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Bowler, John) (Entered:
05/17/2016)

05/17/2016

29

MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by
Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Public.Resource.Org,
Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Brief Memorandum of
Law In Support, # 3 Exhibit Ex. A, # 4 Exhibit Ex. B, # 5 Exhibit Ex. C, # 6
Exhibit Ex. D, # 7 Exhibit Ex. E, # 8 Exhibit Ex. F, # 9 Exhibit Ex. G, # 10
Exhibit Ex. H, # 11 Exhibit Ex. I, # 12 Exhibit Ex. J, # 13 Exhibit Ex. K, # 14
Exhibit Ex. L, # 15 Exhibit Ex. M, # 16 Exhibit Ex. N, # 17 Exhibit Ex.
O)(Parker, Sarah) −−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.−− (Entered: 05/17/2016)

05/17/2016

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.−− (Entered:
05/17/2016)

05/23/2016

31

ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge Mark H. Cohen recused. Case reassigned to
Judge Richard W. Story for all further proceedings NOTICE TO ALL
COUNSEL OF RECORD: The Judge designation in the civil action number
assigned to this case has been changed to 1:15−cv−2594−RWS. Please make

7

note of this change in order to facilitate the docketing of pleadings in this case.
Signed by Judge Mark H. Cohen on 5/23/16. (jpa) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
06/06/2016

32

06/07/2016

APPLICATION for Admission of Lawrence Schemmel Pro Hac Vice
(Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−6493289)by State of Mississippi
Joint Legislative Committee,. (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
Submission of 28 First MOTION for Leave to File An Amicus Curiae Brief in
Support of Plaintiff, submitted to District Judge Richard W. Story. (hfm)
(Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016

33

RESPONSE in Opposition re 30 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment
filed by Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Public.Resource.Org, Inc.,
Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts)(Parker,
Sarah) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/10/2016

34

RESPONSE in Opposition re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by
Code Revision Commission, State of Georgia. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #
2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Statement
of Undisputed Material Facts, # 5 Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement of
Additional Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Its Response to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment)(Pavento, Lisa) (Entered:
06/10/2016)

06/17/2016

RETURN of 32 APPLICATION for Admission of Lawrence Schemmel Pro
Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−6493289) to attorney
for correction re: form. (pb) (Entered: 06/17/2016)

06/21/2016

35

APPLICATION for Admission of Lawrence Arthur Schemmel Pro Hac Vice
by State of Mississippi Joint Legislative Committee,. (Hirsch, Michelle)
(Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/24/2016

36

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Replies by
Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Public.Resource.Org,
Inc.. (Parker, Sarah) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/27/2016

Submission of 36 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Replies ,
submitted to District Judge Richard W. Story. (hfm) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

06/27/2016

37

ORDER granting 28 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support
of Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 6/27/16. (hfm) (Entered:
06/27/2016)

06/27/2016

38

Amicus Curiae Brief by Matthew Bender &Company, Inc. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(hfm) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

06/27/2016

39

ORDER granting 36 Motion for Extension of Time, through and including
July 5, 2016, to file replies to the pending Motions for Summary Judgement.
Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 6/27/16. (hfm) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

07/05/2016

40

REPLY to Response to Motion re 30 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment
filed by Code Revision Commission, State of Georgia. (Pavento, Lisa)
(Entered: 07/05/2016)

07/05/2016

41

REPLY to Response to Motion re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed

8

by Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Public.Resource.Org,
Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts Response to Plaintiff's
Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Material Facts)(Parker, Sarah)
(Entered: 07/05/2016)
07/06/2016

Submission of 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 30 MOTION for
Partial Summary Judgment. Submitted to District Judge Richard W. Story.
(bdb) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

07/07/2016

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 35 APPLICATION for Admission of
Lawrence Arthur Schemmel Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Lawrence Arthur
Schemmel added appearing on behalf of State of Mississippi Joint Legislative
Committee, (pb) (Entered: 07/07/2016)

07/11/2016

42

07/11/2016

ORDER granting 35 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice Lawrence
Arthur Schemmel for State of Mississippi Joint Legislative Committee. Signed
by Judge Richard W. Story on 7/11/2016. (bdb) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to State of Mississippi Joint Legislative
Committee, re 42 Order on Application for Admission PHV to Lawrence
Arthur Schemmel. (bdb) (Entered: 07/11/2016)

03/10/2017

43

03/23/2017

44

04/06/2017

45

Joint MOTION for Order Entering Proposed Permanent Injunction by Code
Revision Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Askew,
Anthony) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/07/2017

46

34 PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER granting 45 Joint Motion for
Permanent Injunction Order. (See order for details) The Clerk shall close the
case. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 4/7/2017. (bdb) Modified to add
text on 4/7/2017 (bdb). (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017

NOTICE Of Filing Supplemental Authority by Code Revision Commission,
State of Georgia (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pavento, Lisa)
(Entered: 03/10/2017)
11 ORDER denying 29 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting
30 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The parties are
ORDERED to confer and to submit to the Court, within 14 days, a proposed
briefing schedule to address the injunctive relief to which Plaintiffs are
entitled as a result of the foregoing decision. Signed by Judge Richard W.
Story on 3/23/2017. (bdb) (Entered: 03/23/2017)

Civil Case Terminated. (bdb) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017

47

AO 121 re 46 Order and Register of Copyrights mailed to Register of
Copyrights Office. (Attachments: # 1 Permanent Injunction Order) (bdb)
(Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017

48

RESPONSE in Support re 45 Joint MOTION for Order Entering Proposed
Permanent Injunction filed by Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. (Rader, Elizabeth)
(Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017

49

36 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 44 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,
Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and 46 Permanent Injunction
Order by Public.Resource.Org, Inc. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number
113E−7076702. Transcript Order Form due on 4/21/2017 (Rader, Elizabeth)

9

Modified on 4/7/2017 to include document relationship (kac). (Entered:
04/07/2017)
04/07/2017

50

39 NOTICE Of Filing Appeal Transmission Letter by Public.Resource.Org, Inc.,
re: 49 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

10

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 23

IN T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F O R T H E NORTHERN DISTRICT OF G E O R G I A
ATLANTA DIVISION
CODE REVISION COMMISSION
and STATE OF GEORGIA,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
l:15-CV-2594-RWS

V.

PUBLIC.RES0URCE.ORG, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 29] and Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
[Doc. No. 30].
I.

Factual Background
Plaintiff Code Revision Commission ("Commission") is composed

Lieutenant Governor, four members of the Senate, the Speaker

House of

Representatives, four additional members of the House of Representatives, and
four members appointed by the State Bar of Georgia, one of whom is a judge or
senior judge of the State Superior Courts and one of whom is a State district
attorney.

O.C.G.A., Foreword at x.

The Commission assists the Georgia

11

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 23

legislature in publishing the laws it enacts in the Official Code of Georgia
("O.C.G.A.") [Doc. No. 29-1,

12, admitted; Doc. No. 17,

Commission was created by the General Assembly in
selecting a publishing

82].

The

and was tasked with

"possessing the necessary expertise and manpower to

accomplish a complete

[of the

O.C.G.A., Foreword at ix-x. From

laws] as quickly as possible."

law publishers, the Commission selected

The Michie Company to prepare and publish what would become the O.C.G.A.
and entered into a contract. Id, at x.
The Commission itself developed the uniform numbering system and rules
of style used in the new

Code and adopted an arrangement into 53 Code

titles. Id, at xi. Upon completion of the editorial process, a manuscript entitled
the Code of Georgia 1981 Legislative Edition was prepared, presented to the
General Assembly, and enacted at the
Assembly [Doc. No. 29-1,

extraordinary session of the General

19, admitted]. Annotations, indexes, editorial notes,

and other materials have been added to that manuscript to produce the O.C.G.A.,
the first official Code to be published under authority

State of Georgia since

the Code of 1933
On October 3, 2006, the Commission issued a Request for Proposals, and
2
A O 72A
{Rev.8/8
2)

12

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 23

on December

the Commission entered a new Agreement for

("Agreement") with Matthew Bender & Co. Inc. ("Lexis/Nexis") [Doc. No. 29-1,
20, admitted; Doc. No. 29-8]. The Agreement requires the official Code to
include not only the statutory provisions, but also "annotations, captions,
catchlines, headings, history lines, editorial notes, cross-references, indices, title
and chapter analyses, research references, amendment

Code Commission

notes, and other material related to or included in such Code at the direction
Commission" [Doc. No. 29-8, p. 2]. Each O.C.G.A. volume and supplement
therefore contains statutory text and non-statutory annotation text, including
judicial decision summaries, editor's notes, research references, notes on law
review articles, summaries of the opinions of the Attomey General of Georgia,
indexes, and title, chapter, article, part, and subpart captions, which are all
prepared by Lexis/Nexis under the requirements of the Agreement [Doc. No.

9, 18,

26].

The Agreement provides that the Commission, not its hired publisher, has
"the ultimate right of editorial control" both over all material contained in the
O.C.G.A. and over what material is selected to become part

O.C.G.A. [Doc.

No. 29-8, p. 2]. The Agreement requires Lexis/Nexis to follow the Commission's

A O 72A
(Rev.8/8
2)

13

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 23

detailed publication manual, which "reflect[s] those specific content, style and
publishing standards of the Code as adopted, approved or amended from time to
time by the Commission or its staff pursuant to Code Section 28-9-3 of the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated" [ I d ] . Additionally, the Agreement requires
that Lexis/Nexis summarize "all published opinions of the Georgia Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals of Georgia, and all published opinions of the United
States Supreme Court and other federal courts that arose in Georgia and construed
Georgia general statutes, whether such decisions favor plaintiffs, defendants, or
the prosecution" [ I d , p. 4]. The Agreement similarly provides that research
references and legislative history are included in the O.C.G.A. [ I d , pp. 5-6].
The Agreement requires that Lexis/Nexis provide Georgia's statutes in an
un-annotated form on a website that the public can access for free using the
Internet [Doc. No. 29-8, pp. 12-13; Doc. No. 17,

73-75]. The free public

website contains only the statutory text and numbering of the O.C.G.A. [Doc. No.
17,

73, 75]. The Agreement requires Lexis/Nexis to track usage of the un-

annotated Code and to report annually to the Commission the amount of usage and
the effect of subscriptions to the Code in print and on CD-ROM [Doc. No. 29-8,
p. 13]. The Agreement requires Lexis/Nexis to provide appropriate copyright
4

14

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 5 of 23

notice on both the free pubhc website and the onhne O.C.G.A. available as part
of the Lexis/Nexis for-profit online services and to notify visitors that any
reproduction of the O.C.G.A. other than the statutory text and numbering is
prohibited [Doc. No. 29-8, p. 13].
In Georgia, Lexis/Nexis has the exclusive right to publish and sell the
O.C.G.A. as a printed publication, on CD-ROM and in an online version, and
Lexis/Nexis receives income from its sales of the O.C.G.A. [Doc. No.

84-

85]. The Commission, however, only receives royalties from the licensing fee for
the CD-ROM and online versions
In fiscal year

O.C.G.A. [Doc. No. 29-1, 37, admitted].

the Commission received

in licensing fee royalties

admitted].
To

the O.C.G.A., including the annotations, available on the Internet,

Public Resource purchased all 186 printed volumes and supplements of the
O.C.G.A., scanned them all, and then posted those copies on its website:
https://law.resource.org

Pubhc Resource also distributed

copies of the entirety of the O.C.G.A. contained on USB thumb drives to the
Speaker of the House, Georgia House of Representatives, Mr. Wayne Allen,
Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel, Georgia General Assembly,
5

15

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 6 of 23

and other members of the State of Georgia legislature [ I d ,

63-64]. Public

Resource actively encourages all citizens to copy, use, and disseminate the
O.C.G.A. volumes and to create works containing them [Doc. No. 29-1,

74,

admitted].
This action was filed on July 21, 2015 [Doc. No. 1]. On October 8, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint with claims for direct and indirect
copyright infringement [Doc. No.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and

removal of any infringing materials from the Internet [Id]. Defendant filed a
Counterclaim which seeks a judgment of non-infringement [Doc. No.
After the Commission commenced this

Public Resource purchased

and copied the

volumes and supplements of the O.C.G.A. and posted them

on its website [ I d ,

46]. In

Public Resource posted the copies on the

Internet archive website, www.archive.org [ I d ,
II.

50-52, 54-56].

Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires that summary judgment be

granted " i f the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R.

P.

56(a). "The moving party bears 'the initial responsibility of informing the . . .
6

16

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 7 of 23

court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions
depositions, answers to

and admissions on

pleadings,

together with the

affidavits, i f any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.'" Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co.. 357 F.3d 1256, 1260
Cir. 2004) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S.

323

(internal

quotations omitted)). Where the moving party makes such a showing, the burden
shifts to the non-movant, who must go beyond the pleadings and present
affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact does exist.
Anderson v.

Lobbv. Inc.. 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).

The applicable substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id, at
248. A fact is not material i f a dispute over that fact will not affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law. Ld, An issue is genuine when the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could retum a verdict for the non-moving party. Id,
at 249-50.
In resolving a motion for summary judgment, the court must view all
evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Patton v. Triad Guar. Ins. Corp.. 277 F.3d 1294, 1296

Cir.

2002). But the court is bound only to draw those inferences that are reasonable.
7
A O 72A
(Rev,8/8
2)

17

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 8 of 23

"Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to
for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Allen v. Tyson
Foods. Inc.. 121 F.3d 642, 646

Cir. 1997)

Matsushita Elec. Indus.

Co.v. Zenith Radio Corp.. 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). " I f the evidence is merely
colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted."
Anderson. 477 U.S. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted); see also Matsushita.
475 U.S. at 586 (once the moving party has met its burden under Rule 56(a), the
nonmoving party "must do more than simply show there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts").
III.

Analysis
Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 29].

Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No.
because Plaintiffs do not request judgment as to the
of briefing were

to be registered. In support of its

works, which at the time
Defendant contends

the Court should grant summaryjudgment for two reasons: (1) the annotations
to the O.C.G.A. are not copyrightable due to the unusual circumstances in Georgia
in which the O.C.G.A., the only official Code of Georgia, includes the
annotations; and (2) even i f the annotations are copyrightable, Defendant's use
8

18

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 9 of 23

constitutes a non-infringing fair use of
A.

copyrighted work.

Copyrightability of the O.C.G.A.

In order to establish a case of direct copyright infringement, Plaintiffs must
demonstrate that:

they own a valid copyright in the allegedly infringing works,

and (2) that Defendant copied the protected elements
& Assocs. V. World

works.

Letterese

of Scientologv Enters.. I n t ' l 533 F.3d

Cir. 2008) (citing Feist

Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.. 499 U.S. 340, 361

The parties have stipulated that, outside
each of the O.C.G.A. works is the

in

of a copyright registration [Doc. No.

A certificate of copyright registration made within

years after first

publication of the work constitutes "prima facie evidence of the validity of the
copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate." Latimer v. Roaring Toyz. Inc..
601 F.3d 1224, 1233

Cir. 2010); 17 U.S.C. §

Production of these

registrations shifts the burden to Defendant to establish that the registered works
are not copyrightable. Latimer. 601 F.3d at 1233.
The Copyright Act extends protection to copyright owners "in original
works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now Imown or
later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise

A O 72A
(Rev.8/8
2)

19

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 10 of 23

communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
§

U.S.C.

The Supreme Court instructs that the amount of originality required to

extend copyright protection to a work is exceedingly low, that only a "modicum
of creativity" is needed, and that copyright protection will be provided to the work
"no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be." Feist. 499 U.S. at 345-46.
The Copyright Act itself specifically lists "annotations" in the works
entitled to copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 101.

line of cases recognizes

copyright protection for annotated cases and statutes. See,

W.H. Anderson

Co. V. Baldwin Law Pub. Co.. 27 F.2d 82 (6th Cir. 1928); Lawrence v. Dana.
F. Cas. 26 ( C C D . Mass.

Moreover, the United States Copyright Office's

own treatise expressly recognizes the protectability of annotations.

U.S.

COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES § §

717.1 (3d ed. 2014) (stating also that "[a] legal publication that
analyzes, annotates, summarizes, or comments upon a legislative enactment, a
judicial decision, an executive order, an administrative regulation, or other edicts
of government may be registered as a non-dramatic literary work"). In fact, the
Copyright Office has a long history of registering annotated statutes, such as
Copyright Reg.

for Vernon's Annotated Statutes

State of

10

20

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 11 of 23

Texas and Copyright Reg.

for Annotated Statutes of New Mexico

Advance Code Service. Defendant admits that annotations in an unofficial
Code would be copyrightable [Doc. No.

p. 2].

Here, Defendant argues that these annotations to the O.C.G.A. are not
copyrightable, but the Court disagrees. The Court acloiowledges that this is an
unusual case because most official codes are not annotated and most annotated
codes are not official. The annotations here are nonetheless entitled to copyright
protection. The Court finds that Callaghan v. Mvers. 128 U.S. 617 (1888), in
which the Court found annotations in a legal reporter were copyrightable by the
publisher, is instructive. Defendant itself has admitted that annotations in an
unofficial reporter would be copyrightable,

the Court finds that the Agreement

does not transform copyrightable material into non-copyrightable material.
Furthermore, a transformation of an annotation into one uncopyrightable
unit with the statutory text would be in direct contradiction to current Georgia law.
The U.S. Copyright Office has stated: "As a matter of longstanding public pohcy,
the

Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued

any state." Compendium
ed.

U.S. Copyright Office Practices

However, the Copyright Compendium makes clear that the Office may
11

21

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 12 of 23

register annotations that summarize or comment upon legal materials unless the
annotations have the force of law. Only those government documents having the
force of law are uncopyrightable. Id,
The entire O.C.G.A. is not enacted into law by the Georgia legislature and
does not have the force of law. The Georgia General Assembly has passed not just
one but three different statutes to make clear that the O.C.G.A. contains both law
and commentary. O.C.G.A. § 1-1-1 distinguishes the statutory and non-statutory
commentary portions of the O.C.G.A.:
The statutory portion of the codification of Georgia laws prepared by
the Code Revision Commission and the Michie Company pursuant
to a contract entered into on June
is enacted and shall have
the effect of statutes enacted by the General Assembly of Georgia.
The statutory portion of such codification shall be merged with
annotations, captions, catchlines, history lines, editorial notes, crossreferences, indices, title and chapter analyses, and other materials
pursuant to the contract and shall be published by authority of the
state pursuant to such contract and when so published shall be known
and may be cited as the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated."
O.C.G.A. § 1-1-7 first enacted as a session law in 1982 further states:
Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the descriptive headings or
catchlines immediately preceding or within the text of the individual
Code sections of this Code, except the Code section numbers
included in the headings or catchlines immediately preceding the text
of the Code sections, and title and chapter analyses do not constitute
part of the law and shall in no manner limit or expand the
12
A O 72A
(Rev.8/8
2)

22

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 13 of 23

construction of any Code section. All historical citations, title and
chapter analyses, and notes set out in this Code are given for the
purpose of convenient reference and do not constitute part
law.
Finally, the State of Georgia sessions laws include the following:
Annotations; editorial notes; Code Revision Commission notes;
research references; notes on law review articles; opinions of the
Attorney General of Georgia; indexes; analyses; title, chapter, article,
part, and subpart captions or headings, except as otherwise provided
in the Code; catchlines of the Code sections or portions thereof,
except as otherwise provided in the Code; and rules and regulations
of state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, or other entities
which are contained in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are
not enacted as statutes by the provisions of this Act.
2014 Ga. Laws 866, 2015 Ga. Laws 5, § 54.
Finally, Defendant has argued that the merger doctrine applies here and bars
copyrightability. Under the merger doctrine, "expression is not protected in those
instances where there is only one or so few ways of expressing an idea that
protection

expression would effectively accord protection to the idea itself"

BUC Inf 1 Corp. v. Inf 1 Yacht Council Ltd.. 489 F.3d

Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Such is not the case here. The mere fact that
the judicial summaries in the O.C.G.A. are distinctly different from corresponding
annotations in West's Code Annotated belies the applicability of the merger
doctrine. There is no question that there are a multitude of ways to write a
13
A O 72A
(Rev,8/8
2)

23

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 14 of 23

paragraph summarizing a judicial decision, and further, a multitude of ways to
compile the different annotations throughout the O.C.G.A. Therefore, the Court
finds that the merger doctrine is inapplicable here.
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the annotations
O.C.G.A. are copyrightable.
B.

Fair Use

Since the Court has found that the armotations of the O.C.G.A. are entitled
to copyright protection, the Court will now address Defendant's arguments
regarding fair use. A

of fair use is an affirmative defense with the burden

of proof on the putative infringer. See Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation
Enters.. 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985); Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton. 769 F.3d
1232, 1280

Cir. 2014). In determining whether application of the fair use

doctrine is appropriate, the Copyright Act mandates the review of four factors: (1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the
copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential
market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 107. These four
14

24

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 15 of 23

statutory factors are not to be treated in isolation from one another. See Campbell
V. Acuff-Rose Music. Inc.. 510 U.S. 569, 578 (1994). Rather,
explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the

are to be
of copyright."

578.
i.

Purpose and character of the use

The first factor that the Court must consider is the purpose and character of
Defendant's use of the copyrighted work. The Court must consider multiple
factors, including (1) the extent to which the use is "transformative" rather than
merely a superseding use of the original work, and (2) whether the use is for a
nonprofit educational purpose, as opposed to a commercial purpose. Peter
Letterese & Assocs. v. World

of Scientologv Enters.. 533 F.3d 1287, 1309

Cir. 2008). The Eleventh Circuit instructs:
A transformative work one that adds something new, with a further
purpose or different character,
the first work with new
expression, meaning or message. On the other hand, a work that is
not transformative, and that merely supersedes the objects
original creation, is less likely to be entitled to the defense of fair use
because of the greater likelihood that it will supplant the market for
the copyrighted work, fulfilling demand for the original.
I d at

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Defendant does not transform the annotations. It does not add, edit, modify,
15

A O 72A
(Rev.8/8
2)

25

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 16 of 23

comment on, criticize, or create any analysis or notes of its own. Defendant's
justification in support of its verbatim copying and free distribution without
authorization is that it purports to provide wider distribution of the annotations.
Courts have routinely

ected arguments that this is transformative use. See,

Author's Guild. Inc. v. HathiTrust. 755 F.3d
court concluded

Cir.

district

the 'use of digital copies to facilitate access for print-disabled

persons is a transformative' use. This is a misapprehension; providing expanded
access to the print disabled is not 'transformative'") (citation omitted)); Seltzer v.
Green Dav. Inc.. 725 F.3d 1170,

(9th Cir. 2013) ("In the typical 'non-

transformative' case, the use is one which makes no alteration to the expressive
content or message of the original work." (emphasis omitted)). Defendant's
verbatim copying and posting of the annotations is expressly designed to supplant
the O.C.G.A. as already distributed and made available online by Lexis/Nexis,
which is not transformative.
The Court must also consider whether Defendant's use is for a nonprofit
educational purpose, as opposed to a commercial purpose. That Defendant is a
nonprofit does not end the inquiry pursuant to §
explained

The Supreme Court has

[t]he crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole
16

26

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 17 of 23

motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from
exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price."
& Row. 471 U.S. at 562.

Courts in several cases have found that

educational use of copyrighted works by a nonprofit entity (or an individual
associated with such an entity) was commercial even though the
was not selling the items in question;

user

may take the form of an indirect

economic benefit or a non-monetary, professional

See, e.g..

Transfiguration Monastery. Inc. v. Gregory. 689 F.3d 29, 61 (1st Cir. 2012)
(finding that the first factor weighed against fair use where an archbishop used
copyrighted translations of a religious text on his website; although the use was
educational, the archbishop profited from the use, in part, in the form of enhanced
professional reputation; Worldwide Church of God v.
227 F.3d

Church of God. Inc..

(9th Cir. 2000) (finding the first factor weighed against fair

use where a religious organization distributed copies of a copyrighted book for use
in its religious observance; the use was nontransformative, and although the use
was educational, the organization profited indirectly by using the work to attract
new members who would tithe ten percent of their income); Weissmarm v.
Freeman. 868 F.2d

(2d Cir.

(finding that the first factor weighed
17

27

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 18 of 23

against fair use where a professor claimed an assistant's paper as his own work
and copied it for use in his class, under the professor's name, because the
professor profited from the use by enhancing his professional reputation and
gaining a valuable authorship credit).
In this

Defendant's business involves copying and providing what it

deems to be "primary legal materials" on the Internet. Defendant is paid in the
form of grants and contributions to further its practice of copying and distributing
copyrighted materials. Defendant has also published documents that teach others
how to take similar actions with respect to government documents. Therefore, the
Court finds that Defendant "profits" by the attention, recognition, and
contributions it receives in association with its copying and distributing the
copyrighted O.C.G.A. annotations, and its use was neither nonprofit nor
educational.
ii.

Nature of the copyrighted work

The second factor that the Court must consider is the nature of the
copyrighted work. The selection, writing, editing, statutory commentary, and
creativity of the annotations requires skill and analysis in reviewing a wealth of
materials and drafting original materials to inform and educate users about courts
18

28

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 19 of 23

and agencies applying the Georgia code and their citation in third party materials.
The creation

annotations requires a tremendous amount of work from team

of editors. These efforts confirm that the armotations are original works entitled
to broad copyright protection.
The fact that the annotations contain fact and not fiction does not end the
inquiry for fair use

Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit admonished the district

court in Patton for exactly this approach:
Here, the District Court held that "because all of the excerpts
are informational and educational in nature and none are
fictional, fair use factor two weights in favor of Defendants.
Cambridge Univ. Press. 863 F.Supp.2d at 1242. We disagree.
. . . Accordingly, we find that the District Court erred in
holding that the second factor favored fair use in every
instance. Where the excerpts of Plaintiffs' works contained
evaluative, analytical, or
descriptive material that
surpasses the bare facts necessary to communicate
information, or derives from the author's experiences or
opinions, the District Court should have held that the second
factor was neutral, or even weighed against fair use in cases of
excerpts that were dominated by such material.
Patton. 769 F.3d 1269-1270. The annotations in this case contain exactly the
evaluative, analytical, or subjectively descriptive analysis and guidance that the
Eleventh Circuit addressed in Patton. Thus, the second factor is, at best, neutral
as between these parties.
19

29

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 20 of 23

iii.

Amount and substantiality

portion used

The third factor that the Court must consider is "the amount and
substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole."
17 U.S.C. § 107(3). A court must ask whether the defendant has "helped [itself]
overmuch to the copyrighted work in light of the purpose and character of the
use." Peter

533 F.3d at

(quoting Campbell.

U.S. at 587). This

factor recognizes that the more of a copyrighted work that is taken in quantity and
quality, the less likely the use is to be fair. See Harper & Row.

U.S. at 565

(holding that the third factor disfavored fair use because the defendant copied a
qualitatively substantial portion of the original work, even though the defendants
copied only approximately

words out of the 200,000 words in the plaintiffs'

work). Indeed, where a defendant "uses virtually all of a copyrighted work, the
fair use defense drifts even further out of its reach." Pac. & S. Co. v. Duncan. 744
F.2d 1490, 1497

Cir. 1984). In this

Defendant has misappropriated

every single word of every annotation using a bulk industrial electronic scanner.
iv.

Effect on the potential market

The fourth factor that the Court must consider is "the effect of the use upon
the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C. § 107(4).
20

30

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 21 of 23

The "central question" is whether, assuming that everyone engaged in the
defendant's conduct, the use "would cause substantial economic harm such that
allowing [the conduct] would frustrate the purposes of copyright by materially
impairing [the] incentive to publish the work." Patton. 769 F.3d at 1276. The
Supreme Court has expressly stated that this factor forms the most central inquiry
fair use doctrine. Harper & Row. 471 U.S. at 566 (stating "[t]his factor is
undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use").
Plaintiffs have established the markets for the O.C.G.A. works: printed
publications, CD-ROM, and subscription services. When considering Defendant's
actions being performed by everyone, it is inevitable that Plaintiffs' markets
would be substantially adversely impacted. A judicial decree that Defendant's
wholesale copying of the copyrighted armotations constitutes a fair use would
hinder the economic viability of creating and maintaining the O.C.G.A. because
people would be less likely to pay for annotations when they are available for free
online.
Additionally, Lexis/Nexis's sole revenue to recoup the costs of preparation
of the annotations is through hard copy sales and licensing online access to the
O.C.G.A. as permitted by the Agreement. Because Defendant has copied every
21

31

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 22 of 23

word of the annotations verbatim and posted them free of charge, Defendant's
misappropriation destroys Lexis/Nexis's ability to recoverthese costs. See
769 F.3d at 1275 ("Because Defendants' use is nontransformative and fulfills the
educational purposes that Plaintiffs, at least in part, market their works for, the
threat of market substitution here is great and thus the fourth factor looms large
in the overall fair use analysis."). The revenues from such licensing reinforce the
value of the O.C.G.A. and the damage that would be inflicted i f the entire
O.C.G.A. were made available for
v.

Conclusion

The Court has weighed all of the Campbell factors and finds that at least
three of the four factors weigh in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant. As a
result, the Court concludes that Defendant has not met its burden of proving fair
use, and Plaintiffs are entitled to partial
IV.

Conclusion
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 29] is DENIED.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 30] is GRANTED.
The parties are ORDERED to confer and to submit to the Court, within

days,

a proposed briefing schedule to address the injunctive relief to which Plaintiffs are
22

32

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 44 Filed 03/23/17 Page 23 of 23

entitled as a result of the foregoing decision.
SO ORDERED, this

day of March

W. STORY
District ludge

23
A O 72A
(Rev.8/8
2)

33

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 46 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 2

34

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 46 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 2

35

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 49 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 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,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

v.

1:15-CV-2594-RWS

PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
Defendant.

NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff
Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (“Public Resource”) appeals to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the Final Judgment entered on April 7,
2017 (D.I. 46) and all other orders decided adversely to Defendants, including, but
not limited to, the Court’s March 23, 2017 Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (D.I. 44). Consistent with Rule 4(a) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Notice of Appeal is being filed within 30 days
of the entry of the District Court’s March 23, 2017.
1
36

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 49 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 3

Respectfully submitted, this 7th day of April, 2017.
/s/Elizabeth H. Rader
Elizabeth H. Rader (pro hac vice)
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Jason D. Rosenberg
Georgia Bar No. 510855
Sarah Parker LaFantano
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for the Defendant,
Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

2
37

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 49 Filed 04/07/17 Page 3 of 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,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

v.

1:15-CV-2594-RWS

PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have filed the foregoing Notice of Appeal of
Defendant Public.Resource.Org, Inc. electronically with the Clerk of Court,
using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send notification of such filing
to all attorneys of record.
/s/ Sarah P. LaFantano
Sarah P. LaFantano
Georgia Bar No. 734610

3
38

Case 1:15-cv-02594-RWS Document 50 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
2211 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
75 TED TURNER DRIVE, SW
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-3361

JAMES N. HATTEN
DISTRICT COURT EXECUTIVE
AND CLERK OF COURT

DOCKETING SECTION
404-215-1655

April 7, 2017
Clerk of Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
U.S.D.C. No.: 1:15-cv-2594-RWS
U.S.C.A. No.: 00-00000-00
In re:
Code Revision Commission, et al. v. Public.Resource.Org.Inc.
Enclosed are documents regarding an appeal in this matter. Please acknowledge
receipt on the enclosed copy of this letter.
X

Certified copies of the Notice of Appeal, Docket Sheet and Order appealed
enclosed.
This is not the first notice of appeal. Other notices were filed on: .
There is no transcript.
The court reporter is .
There is sealed material as described below: .
Other: .

X

Fee paid on 4/7/17; Receipt Number 113E-7076702.
Appellant has been leave to file in forma pauperis.
This is a bankruptcy appeal. The Bankruptcy Judge is .
The Magistrate Judge is .

X

The United States District Judge is Richard W. Story.
This is a DEATH PENALTY appeal.
Sincerely,
James N. Hatten
District Court Executive
and Clerk of Court
By:

/s/ Kimberly Carter

Deputy Clerk
Enclosures

39