Fastcase, Inc. v. Lawriter LLC

Filing 4

AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory Judgment against Lawriter LLC, filed by Fastcase, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Errata A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Brazier, Robert) 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.
)
_______________________________)

Case 1:16-cv-00327-TCB
AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Fastcase, Inc. (“Fastcase”) alleges:
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 (a) the Georgia Administrative Rules and Regulations (the “Georgia
Regulations”) or (b) any other state or federal laws, rules or regulations. The
Georgia Regulations are binding law – a broad-ranging collection 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,

1

and published for the benefit of the public by the Georgia Secretary of State, as
required by O.C.G.A. § 50-13-7.
2.

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.
3.

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.
4.

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.
5.

Defendant Lawriter also claims to have a copyright interest in the

State of Ohio Laws and Rules. Fastcase is under a perpetual and imminent threat
that Lawriter may issue a similar demand that Fasctcase remove Ohio laws and
rules.
6.

Fastcase is not now aware of how many other states’ laws, rules and

regulations are subject to claims by Lawriter of any form of exclusive right. The

2

principles of federal copyright law that apply to Georgia and Ohio should apply to
protect Fastcase from similar threats with regard to the laws, rules or regulations of
any other States.
PARTIES
7.

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
the District of Columbia for purposes of assessing diversity jurisdiction.
8.

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
9.

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

3

Regulations,

Fastcase

believes

Defendant’s

allegations

arise

from

a

misinterpretation of, and thus would be controlled by, federal copyright law.
10.

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.
11.

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.
12.

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

4

government in this District to publish, and to offer and sell access to, the Georgia
Regulations to Georgia residents located in this District.
13.

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 11 of this
Amended Complaint.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Fastcase’s and Defendant’s Business Operations
14.

Fastcase is a legal research service that provides online access to

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 in
many states, including Ohio.
15.

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.
16.

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.

5

17.

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.
18.

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
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.
19.

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.
20.

On its website, Defendant similarly represents that it is the

“designated publisher of the Georgia Rules and 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, 2016), a printout of which is attached as Exhibit B.
21.

Defendant’s “Casemaker offers a yearly lease to . . . the continuously

updated Rules & Regulations . . . to non-resellers for viewing on [its] site and for

6

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”).
22.

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
Defendant’s Casemaker website. Id.; see also Ex. A (“Purchase a PDF version of
the [Georgia] Rules & Regs online at www.casemakerlibra.com.”).
23.

In Ohio, Defendant claims to have a copyright interest in the entire set

of state laws and regulations. The official home web page http://codes.ohio.gov
(last visited Feb. 15, 2016) bears the header “LAWriter® Ohio Laws and Rules,”
and bears the legend “Copyright © 2008 Lawriter LLC - All rights reserved.” See
Ex. D.
Defendant’s Demand to Fastcase to Cease and Desist
24.

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

7

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.
25.

The Letter does not identify any specific legal basis for Defendant’s

claim of rights. See id.
26.

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.
COUNT ONE
CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
27.

Fastcase incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1

through 26 of this Complaint.
28.

Defendant has asserted, in its demand letter, 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. Defendant
has also publicly asserted copyright interest in the laws and regulations of the State

8

of Ohio, and possibly others as well not yet known to Plaintiff. However, an
immediate and justiciable controversy

exists because Fastcase disputes

Defendant's claim to these exclusivity rights.
29.

Fastcase faces the threat of imminent litigation by Defendant for

including the Georgia Regulations, as well as the laws, rules, and regulations of
Ohio and of other states, in its member benefit for members of the State Bar of
Georgia, as well as in its subscription legal research service.
30.

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”)
(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

9

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.
31.

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)
32.

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
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.

10

33.

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.
34.

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.
35.

The general principles of copyright law, noted above, also preclude

Defendant from obtaining or enforcing any such rights with regard to the laws and
regulations of Ohio or of any other state.
36.

Accordingly, an actual justiciable controversy exists as to the Parties’

respective rights in connection with Georgia Regulations, and with the laws, rules,
and regulations of any other State as to which Defendant now claims or might
hereafter claim any exclusive right, including the rights to use, license, publish,
and distribute such laws, rules, and regulations, and the Defendant’s demand under
threat of lawsuit that Fastcase cease publication of public law.

11

37.

Accordingly, an actual and justiciable substantial controversy exists

between the Parties as to whether Defendant has any protected rights in the
Georgia Regulations or in the laws, rules, and regulations of any other State.
38.

A determination that the Defendant has no protectable exclusive rights

in the Georgia Regulations, or in the laws, rules, and regulations of any other State,
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, or in the laws, rules, and regulations of
any other State; and
2. Fastcase does not and cannot infringe any exclusive contract
rights held by Defendant in the Georgia Regulations, or in
the laws, rules, and regulations of any other State;

B.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202, such other and further relief, at

law and in equity, to which Fastcase may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of February 2016.

12

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
/s/ Robert G. Brazier
Robert G. Brazier (Georgia Bar No. 078918)
[e-mail]
Steven G. Hall
(Georgia Bar No. 319308)
[e-mail]
Joshua Tropper
(Georgia Bar No. 716790)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Fastcase, Inc.
Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600
3414 Peachtree Road N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]

13