Code Revision Commission et al v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
Filing
55
MOTION for Attorney Fees with Brief In Support by Code Revision Commission, State of Georgia. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support, # 2 Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts)(Askew, Anthony)
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-RWS
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR AN
AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND OTHER COSTS
Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(A), 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”), and in support of
Plaintiff’s Motion For An Award Of Attorneys’ Fees And Other Costs, states that
there is no genuine issue to be tried as to the following additional material facts:
1.
Public Resource posted on its https://yeswescan.org website and
delivered to the Commission a Proclamation of Promulgation stating that its
deliberate copying and distribution of the O.C.G.A. would be greatly expanded in
2014. Dkt. No. 17 ¶ 61.
2.
Public Resource instituted a public funding campaign on the website
www.indiegogo.com to support its continued copying and distribution of the
O.C.G.A. and raised approximately $3,000.00. Dkt. No. 17 ¶ 62.
3.
Carl Malamud, the founder and president of Public.Resource.Org,
testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, House Judiciary Committee, to
advance an amendment to the U.S. Copyright Act making state and local official
legal documents uncopyrightable for reasons of public policy. No such amendment
has been adopted by Congress. Dkt. No. 17 ¶ 59.
4.
Carl Malamud has tried to become the U.S. Public Printer but has not
been nominated for the office of United States Public Printer. Dkt. No. 17 ¶ 60.
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 for an award of attorneys’ fees and other
costs, pursuant to § 505 of the Copyright Act.
2
Respectfully submitted, this 21st day of April, 2017.
/s/Anthony B. Askew
Anthony B. Askew (GA Bar: 025300)
Lisa C. Pavento (GA Bar: 246698)
Warren Thomas (GA Bar: 164714)
Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1300
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Phone: 404-645-7700
Fax: 404-645-7707
taskew@mcciplaw.com
lpavento@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 COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that, pursuant to L.R. 5.1C and 7.1D of the Northern District
of Georgia, the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR AN
AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND OTHER COSTS complies with the font
and point selections approved by the Court in L.R. 5.1C. The foregoing pleading
was prepared on a computer using 14-point Times New Roman font.
/s/Anthony B. Askew
Anthony B. Askew (G.A. Bar: 025300)
Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE Suite 1300
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone: 404-645-7700
Email: taskew@mcciplaw.com
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on Friday, April, 21, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED MATERIAL
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND OTHER COSTS 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/Anthony B. Askew
Anthony B. Askew (GA Bar: 025300)
5
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?