Fastcase, Inc. v. Lawriter LLC
Filing
1
COMPLAINT filed by Fastcase, Inc.. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 113E-6270704.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(tcc) 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.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
FASTCASE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAWRITER LLC,
dba CASEMAKER
Defendant.
______________________________)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV. ACTION NO. ________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Fastcase, Inc. (“Fastcase”) by and through counsel,
respectfully requests this Court to issue Declaratory Judgment. In support thereof,
Fastcase alleges the following:
1.
This is a civil action in which Fastcase seeks declaratory judgment
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, and other necessary and proper relief, enjoining Defendant Lawriter, LLC
(“Defendant” or “Lawriter”) from acting in such a manner as to impede Fastcase’s
publication of the Georgia Administrative Rules and Regulations (the “Georgia
Regulations”).
2.
The Georgia Regulations are binding law – a broad-ranging collection
1
of rules and regulations governing areas from consumer protection to banking to
elections. The Georgia Regulations are promulgated by public agencies of the
State of Georgia, and published for the benefit of the public by the Georgia
Secretary of State, as required by O.C.G.A. § 50-13-7.
3.
Defendant Lawriter purports to have exclusive rights to publish the
Georgia Regulations. Consistent with this claim of exclusive rights, Lawriter has
sent Plaintiff Fastcase a demand that Fastcase remove the Georgia Regulations
from its legal research service, which is provided as a free member benefit to
members of the State Bar of Georgia.
4.
The Georgia Regulations are public law published under statutory
mandate and are in the public domain. Defendant cannot claim any exclusive right
in, to, or in connection with, the Georgia Regulations.
5.
Thus, Fastcase seeks declaratory judgment that Lawriter has no basis
from which to prohibit Fastcase from publishing the Georgia Regulations in its
subscription legal research service.
PARTIES
6.
Fastcase is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws
of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Washington,
District of Columbia. As such, Fastcase is a citizen of the State of Delaware and
2
the District of Columbia for purposes of assessing diversity jurisdiction.
7.
Defendant is a limited liability company whose principal place of
business is in the State of Virginia. On information and belief, Defendant is a
citizen of Virginia for purposes of assessing diversity jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction under the Copyright Act of 1976,
17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.; Article I, § 8, cl. 8 of the U.S. Constitution); and § 1338
(exclusive original jurisdiction over claims arising under the Copyright Act).
While Defendant has not identified any specific legal basis for its claim that
Fastcase has violated Defendant’s rights in connection with the Georgia
Regulations,
Fastcase
believes
Defendant’s
allegations
arise
from
a
misinterpretation of, and thus would be controlled by, federal copyright law.
9.
The Court also may exercise diversity of citizenship jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Parties are diverse because Fastcase is a citizen
of Delaware, while Defendant is believed to be a citizen of Virginia and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because Fastcase has sold, or offered to
sell, access to electronic databases including the Georgia Regulations with a
cumulative value in excess of $75,000.
3
10.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it
systematically conducts its publishing operations, and has availed itself of the
privileges of conducting business, in the State of Georgia by licensing use of, as
well as offering to sell and selling subscriptions to use, Georgia Regulations to
citizens of the State of Georgia. Defendant also has negotiated, entered into, and
executed in the State of Georgia, a contractual or business relationship with the
Secretary of State of Georgia government to publish the Georgia Regulations.
11.
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this
District, including Defendant’s negotiation, entry into, and execution of,
Defendant’s contractual and business arrangement with the State of Georgia
government in this District to publish, and to offer and sell access to, the Georgia
Regulations to Georgia residents located in this District.
12.
Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because
Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, as alleged in
Paragraph 10 of this Complaint.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Fastcase’s and Defendant’s Business Operations
13.
Fastcase is a legal research service that provides online access to
4
searchable databases of public law, including federal and state statutes (all 50
states and the District of Columbia), administrative rules and regulations such as
the Georgia Regulations, and judicial decisions, as well as to secondary sources
such as legal treatises, deskbooks, and pattern jury instructions.
14.
Fastcase is available by subscription to lawyers and law firms, as well
as a member benefit paid for by state bar associations and provided as a free
benefit to state bar members. Fastcase is available as a free benefit to members of
the State Bar of Georgia.
15.
Defendant Lawriter is a competing for-profit, subscription legal
research service that similarly offers searchable access to cases, statutes, and other
primary law materials operating under the name Casemaker.
16.
Upon information and belief, Lawriter routinely sources its
Casemaker legal databases from many state statutory and administrative code sites
similar to Georgia Secretary of State’s website at issue in its demand letter. It
engages in the exact practice, in many states, that it has sought to prohibit with the
demand letter at issue in the demand letter that forms the basis of this lawsuit.
17.
According to the Georgia Secretary of State’s website, Defendant is
also “the designated publisher of the Georgia Rules and Regulations” and “granted
sole rights to distribute the [Georgia Regulations].” See Ga. Sec’y of State, “Rules
5
and Regulations of the State of Georgia,” http://rules.sos.ga.gov (last visited Feb.
3, 2016), a printout of which is attached as Exhibit A.
18.
According to the Secretary of State, “[t]he Rules and Regulations of
the State of Georgia is a compilation of the rules and regulations of state agencies
that have been filed with the office of the Secretary of State pursuant to the
Georgia Administrative Procedures Act, O.C.G.A.§ 50-13-1 et seq.” Id.
19.
On its website, Defendant similarly represents that it is the
“designated publisher of the [Georgia Regulations]” and “granted sole rights to the
distribution of this data.” See Casemaker, “Ga. Sec’y of State - Rules & Regs
Admin Proc. Div.,” http://gasos.casemakerlibra.com/home/index.aspx (last visited
Feb. 3, 2015), a printout of which is attached as Exhibit B.
20.
Defendant’s “Casemaker offers a yearly lease to . . . the continuously
updated Rules & Regulations . . . to non-resellers for viewing on [its] site and for
PDF download and printing.” Id. (emphasis added). “The entire set of rules can
be leased as a whole or selectively by department.” Id.; see also Ex. A (instructing
viewer to select “Subscribe to the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia”).
21.
Even though Defendant routinely sources its research materials from
state websites hosted by private publishers, Defendant would require legal
publishers such as Fastcase to pay a fee to access the Georgia Regulations through
6
Defendant’s Casemaker website. Id.; see also Ex. A (“Purchase a PDF version of
the [Georgia Regulations] online at www.casemakerlibra.com.”).
Defendant’s Demand to Fastcase to Cease and Desist
22.
On December 21, 2015, Lawriter sent Fastcase a Cease and Desist
Letter (the “Letter”), asserting that: (a) Defendant is the sole “party authorized to
license and/or offer subscriptions to use . . . Electronic Files . . . incorporating the
[Georgia Regulations],” and (b) Fastcase’s provision of fee-based access to
Georgia Regulations, without Lawriter’s consent or authorization or a subscription
with Lawriter, violates Lawriter’s “legal rights.” Letter from Thomas E. Epting,
counsel for Defendant, to Ed Walters, CEO of Fastcase (Dec. 21, 2015), a copy of
which is attached as Exhibit C.
23.
The Letter does not identify any specific legal basis for Defendant’s
claim of rights. See id.
24.
Nonetheless, Defendant threatens enforcement of its unspecified
“rights,” including through the commencement of litigation, unless Fastcase: (a)
immediately provides Defendant a written response justifying its right to use
Georgia Regulations, (b) purchases from Lawriter a subscription to Georgia
Regulations, or (c) ceases use of Georgia Regulations, including provision of feebased access to Georgia Regulations. Id.
7
COUNT ONE
CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
25.
Fastcase incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1
through 24 of this Complaint.
26.
Defendant has asserted that it is entitled to certain exclusivity rights
with respect to the Georgia Regulations and has demanded that Fastcase comply
with its assertion of exclusivity rights. However, Fastcase disputes Defendant's
claim to these exclusivity rights therefore creating an immediate and justiciable
controversy.
27.
Fastcase faces the threat of imminent litigation by Defendant for
including the Georgia Regulations in its member benefit for members of the State
Bar of Georgia, as well as in its subscription legal research service.
28.
Lawriter, however, cannot claim a valid copyright or an exclusive
license to a valid copyright. It is well established in American law that state laws,
including administrative rules and regulations, are not copyrightable, and must
remain public as a matter of due process. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.)
591 (1834); Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888); Davidson v. Wheelock, 27
F. 61 (C.C.D. Minn. 1866) (publisher can’t copyright state statutes, even if state
purports to give exclusive publishing rights); Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129 (6th Cir.
1898) (“no one can obtain the exclusive right to publish the laws of a state”)
8
(Harlan, J., sitting by designation); Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559
(Mass. 1886) (“Every citizen is presumed to know the law thus declared, and it
needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to
the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to
suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes or the
decisions and opinions of the justices.”). See generally L. Ray Patterson & Craig
Joyce, Monopolizing the Law: The Scope of Copyright Protection for Law
Reports and Statutory Compilations, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 719 (1989), and cases cited
therein.
29.
Indeed, "[a]s a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S.
Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any
state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial
decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official
legal materials.” Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition,
Sec. 313.6(C)(2)
30.
Fastcase is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
Defendant has not contributed any original authorship to the Georgia Regulations
or any compilation of the Georgia Regulations. The rules and regulations included
in the Georgia Regulations are promulgated by state agencies for the benefit of the
9
citizens of the state, and all published regulations are included in the Georgia
Regulations, as required by the Code of Georgia § 50-13-7. Defendant neither
writes regulations for the State of Georgia, nor selects which regulations are
worthy of publication in the Georgia Regulations.
31.
In addition, any contract between the Secretary of State and the
Defendant to publish public law is not enforceable against Fastcase.(O.C.G.A. §
13-3-1 ("To constitute a valid contract, there must be parties able to contract,
consideration moving to the contract, the assent of the parties to the terms of the
contract and a subject matter upon which the contract can operate.") Fastcase is
not a party to the state’s contract, and it is not prohibited by any other contract
from publishing public law, on a subscription basis or otherwise.
32.
In view of the foregoing, Defendant has no legal rights, in copyright
or contract, exclusive or otherwise, to restrict publication of the Georgia
Regulations, which belong to the people of the State of Georgia.
33.
Accordingly, an actual justiciable controversy exists as to the Parties’
respective rights in connection with Georgia Regulations, including the rights to
use, license, publish, and distribute Georgia Regulations, and the Defendant’s
demand under threat of lawsuit that Fastcase cease publication of public law.
34.
Accordingly, an actual and justiciable substantial controversy exists
10
between the Parties as to whether Defendant has any protected rights in the
Georgia Regulations.
35.
A determination that the Defendant has no protectable exclusive
rights in the Georgia Regulations, in either contract or copyright, would resolve
this controversy.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Fastcase respectfully requests the Court enter judgment in
its favor and grant Fastcase the following relief:
A. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declarations that:
1. Defendant does not and cannot have any copyright in the
Georgia Regulations; and
2. Fastcase does not and cannot infringe any exclusive contract
rights held by Defendant in the Georgia Regulations;
B. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202, such other and further relief, at law and
in equity, to which Fastcase may be entitled.
11
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of February 2016.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
/s/ Steven G. Hall
Robert G. Brazier (Georgia Bar No. 078918)
rbrazier@bakerdonelson.com
Steven G. Hall
(Georgia Bar No. 319308)
shall@bakerdonelson.com
Joshua Tropper
(Georgia Bar No. 716790)
jtropper@bakerdonelson.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Fastcase, Inc.
Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600
3414 Peachtree Road N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone (404) 577-6000
Facsimile (404) 221-6501
12
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?