The Authors Guild, Inc. et al v. Hathitrust et al
Filing
52
DECLARATION of Joseph Petersen in Support re: 37 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings.. Document filed by Hathitrust. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Objections and Responses to Requests for Admission, # 2 Exhibit B - Objections and Responses to Request for Production, # 3 Exhibit C - Objections and Responses to Requests for Admissions, # 4 Exhibit D - Objections and Responses of Plaintiff SFF, # 5 Exhibit E - Objections and Responses of Plaintiff NFFO, # 6 Exhibit F - Objections and Responses of Plaintiff Authors Licensing and Collecting)(Petersen, Joseph)
EXHIBIT B
Edward H. Rosenthal
Jeremy S. Goldman
FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, P.C.
488 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Tel: (212) 980-0120
Fax: (212) 593-9175
erosenthal@fkks.com
jgoldman@fkks.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
:
THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., et al,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
- against :
:
HATHITRUST, et al.
:
:
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X
Index No. 11 Civ. 6351 (HB)
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF THE AUTHORS
GUILD TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff The Authors Guild, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits, pursuant to Rules 26, 34
and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 26.3 and 33.3 of the Local Rules for
the Unites States District Courts for the Southern Districts of New York (the “Local Rules”),
Plaintiff’s objections and responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
the Production of Documents (“Requests”).
GENERAL STATEMENTS
A.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth
below into each and every specific response. From time to time a specific response may restate a
General Objection for emphasis or some other reason. The failure to include any General
Objection in any specific response shall not constitute a waiver of any General Objection with
respect to that request.
B.
No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses herein. That
Plaintiff has answered or objected to any interrogatory or document request should not be taken
as an admission that Plaintiff accepts or admits the existence of any fact set forth or assumed by
such interrogatory or document request. The fact that Plaintiff has answered part or all of any
interrogatory or document request is not intended to be, and shall not be construed to be, a
waiver by Plaintiff of any part of any objection to that interrogatory or document request.
C.
These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is
subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility,
and to any and all other objections on any grounds that would require the exclusion of any
documents produced or information provided by Plaintiff at time of trial. By responding to
Defendants’ interrogatories or document requests, Plaintiff does not waive any objection that
may be applicable to: (1) the use, for any purpose, by Defendant of any documents, things or
information provided in response to Defendants’ interrogatories or document requests; or (2) the
admissibility, privilege, relevancy, authenticity, or materiality of any of such documents, things
or information to any issue in the case. Plaintiffs expressly reserves the right to object to the use
of documents or things produced, or information provided, in connection herewith during any
subsequent proceeding, including the trial of this or any other action.
D.
Plaintiff has not completed an investigation of all of the facts relating to this case,
has not completed discovery in this action, and has not completed Plaintiff’s preparation for trial.
The documents and things produced, or information provided, in response to Defendants’
interrogatories or document requests are without prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights to produce
2
additional documents and things, or provide further information. Plaintiff’s responses to
Defendants’ interrogatories and document requests are made based on Plaintiff’s present
information and belief predicated upon information and writings presently available to and
located by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys. Accordingly, these responses are subject to
supplementation and amendment should future investigation indicate that to be appropriate.
Plaintiff also reserve the right to produce or use any documents or information produced and/or
discovered after service of this response in support of or in opposition to any motion, in
depositions, or at trial.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
A.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests seeking confidential, trade secret, or
proprietary business, technical, marketing, or financial information, or any other confidential
material. Plaintiff will disclose confidential information only pursuant to the terms of the
Stipulated Protective Order entered or to be entered in this case. These responses are designated
“CONFIDENTIAL” under the Protective Order entered or to be entered in this case.
B.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests seeking information covered by the
attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, joint defense privilege, or otherwise covered
by any other applicable privilege, immunity, or other protection.
C.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests to the extent it seeks documents or
information that are already in Defendants’ possession, are a matter of public record, or are
otherwise equally available to Defendants.
D.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests with respect to which any benefit of the
production to Defendants is outweighed by the burden and expense to Plaintiff, taking into
account the needs of the case.
3
E.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests seeking through definitions and
instructions to impose obligations beyond what is required in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, applicable court orders, or stipulations or agreements of the
parties (collectively, “the Rules”). Plaintiff will respond to Defendants’ requests only to the
extent required by the Rules.
F.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests seeking material that Plaintiff is under an
obligation to any third-party not to disclose, including documents that would require breach of a
contract, protective order, settlement, or other duty to maintain confidentiality.
G.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests seeking the same information requested by
one or more of Defendants’ requests for production or any interrogatory served by Defendants at
any time in this case. Plaintiff will provide information or documents only once, regardless of
the number of requests to which the same may be responsive.
H.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests to the extent that it seeks information not
relevant to any claim or defense and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, including but not limited to, information beyond the relevant temporal
and/or geographic scope of this matter.
I.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests that purports to attribute any special or
unusual meaning to any technical terms or phrases.
J.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests, and to the incorporated definitions and
instructions contained in such request, that purports to alter the plain meaning and/or scope of
any specific request and thereby renders such request vague, ambiguous, overbroad, or uncertain.
4
K.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests as overbroad and unduly burdensome to
the extent that it can be interpreted in such a way as to require Plaintiff to search for documents
beyond Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control.
L.
Plaintiffs object to each of the requests to the extent they seek legal opinions that
are not properly the subject of rule 26 discovery.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
1.
Identify each work for which [Plaintiff] is the legal or beneficial owner of a
copyright or an exclusive right under a copyright that [Plaintiff] claims has been infringed by
one or more of the Defendants, and provide the following information for each such work: (i)
title; (ii) author; (iii) date and location of first publication; (iv) date and location of any
subsequent publication; (v) the date and registration number of any U.S. copyright registration
and/or renewals; and, if applicable, (vi) the specific exclusive right for which [Plaintiff] is the
legal or beneficial owner; (vii) the manner in which [Plaintiff] became the legal or beneficial
owner of that exclusive right; and (viii) any person or entity, including without limitation coauthors or publishers, that is not a member of [Plaintiff] but is also a legal or beneficial owner
of a copyright or an exclusive right under a copyright for that work, and identify any specific
exclusive right for which that person or entity is the legal or beneficial owner.
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information beyond the
scope of discovery in this action, including without limitation, in that the date and location of
every publication of each work infringed by Defendants, as well as the information requested in
subparagraphs (vi) through (viii) above, are not necessary to establish either Plaintiff’s (a) legal
or beneficial ownership of the copyright at issue, or (b) standing to bring a claim against
Defendants arising from their infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright. Moreover, the
aforementioned requests are both overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing objections or the General
Objections, Plaintiff’s response to this interrogatory, which is provided to the best of Plaintiff’s
knowledge, is set forth in Schedule A.
5
2.
For each member of [Plaintiff], identify each work for which that member is a
legal or beneficial owner of a copyright or an exclusive right under a copyright that [Plaintiff]
claims has been infringed by one or more of the Defendants, and provide the following
information for each such work: (i) title; (ii) author; (iii) date and location of first publication;
(iv) date and location of any subsequent publication; (v) the date and registration number of any
U.S. copyright registration and/or renewals; (vi) the name of [Plaintiff]’s member that is a legal
or beneficial owner of a copyright or an exclusive right under a copyright in the work; and, if
applicable, (vii) the specific exclusive right for which [Plaintiff]’s member is the legal or
beneficial owner; (viii) the manner in which that member became the legal or beneficial owner
of that exclusive right; and (ix) any person or entity, including without limitation co-authors or
publishers, that is not a member of [Plaintiff] but is also a legal or beneficial owner of a
copyright or an exclusive right under a copyright for that work, and identify any specific
exclusive right for which that person or entity is the legal or beneficial owner.
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information beyond the
scope of discovery in this action, including without limitation, in that the identity of and details
concerning each and every work for which each and every member of Plaintiff’s organization is
a legal or beneficial owner of a copyright or an exclusive right under a copyright that Plaintiff
claims has been infringed by one or more of the Defendants is not necessary to establish
Plaintiff’s associational standing to bring a claim against Defendants for copyright infringement.
Furthermore, to the extent this interrogatory seeks to require Plaintiff to identify each and every
one of its members’ copyrighted works and detailed information concerning those works,
Plaintiff objects to the request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection or the General Objections, in
response to Defendants’ discovery requests, Plaintiff is willing to identify works that are
responsive to this interrogatory and the same categories of information concerning those works
that are being provided in response to Interrogatory No. 1 for a mutually-agreeable number of
randomly selected members, in addition to the works that have already been identified in
6
response to Defendants’ discovery requests separately issued to Plaintiffs James Shapiro, T.J.
Stiles, Roxana Robinson, Pat Cummings.
3.
For each work identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 or 2, identify the
most recent date on which that work was published, in hardcopy or electronic form, for
distribution and commercial sale.
RESPONSE:
With respect to the request for information relating to works identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 2, Plaintiff repeats and restates its objections to Interrogatory No. 2. Subject to
and without waiving the foregoing objection or any General Objections, Plaintiff’s response to
the portion of the interrogatory requesting information relating to the works identified in
response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is provided to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, is set
forth in Schedule A.
4.
For each work identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 or 2: (i) indicate
whether any copyright in the work, or any exclusive right under a copyright in the work, was
previously licensed, transferred or assigned to any person and has since reverted to the current
legal or beneficial owner of such copyright or exclusive right; and, if applicable, (ii) identify the
specific exclusive right that has so reverted.
RESPONSE:
With respect to the request for information relating to works identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 2, Plaintiff repeats and restates its objections to Interrogatory No. 2. Plaintiff
further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information beyond the scope of
discovery in this action, including without limitation, in that the information requested is not
necessary to establish either Plaintiff’s (a) legal or beneficial ownership of the copyright at issue,
or (b) standing to bring a claim against Defendants arising from their infringement of Plaintiff’s
copyright. Moreover, the interrogatory is both overbroad and unduly burdensome.
7
Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing objections or the General
Objections, Plaintiff states that for each of Plaintiff’s works identified on Schedule A, Plaintiff’s
predecessor-in-interest granted the exclusive right to publish the work to one or more publishers
for a period of time in exchange for the payment of royalties. Irrespective of whether those
rights reverted, at all times, Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest was and continues to be
either the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the work,
which are the exclusive rights Plaintiff claims to have been violated by Defendants in this action.
5.
For each work identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 or 2, identify any
license or other agreement permitting or requiring the digitization of the work for any purpose
—including without limitation for use in digital distribution, in an electronic database, for
archiving or preservation purposes, for non-consumptive research, for full-text searching,
and/or for use in formats accessible by the blind or others with print disabilities—as well as any
documents concerning such license or agreement.
RESPONSE:
With respect to the request for information relating to works identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 2, Plaintiff repeats and restates its objections to Interrogatory No. 2. Plaintiff
further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information beyond the scope of
discovery in this action, including without limitation, in that publishing licenses and agreements
may be ambiguous as to whether digital reproduction and distribution rights are covered by the
grant of rights, and neither Plaintiff’s claims nor Defendants’ defenses in this action require the
resolution of any such ambiguity.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections or any General Objections, to
date Plaintiff has not identified any license or other agreement expressly permitting or requiring
the digitization of any work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1.
8
6.
For each work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, identify any past,
present, or planned efforts made by, on behalf of or with the knowledge of [Plaintiff], to enter
any license or other agreement allowing for the digitization of the work for any purpose—
including without limitation for use in digital distribution, in an electronic database, for
archiving or preservation purposes, for non-consumptive research, for full-text searching,
and/or for use in formats accessible by the blind or others with print disabilities—as well as any
documents concerning such efforts.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving any General Objections, for each of Plaintiff’s works
identified on Schedule A, Plaintiff will conduct a reasonable search and produce any documents
concerning any specific past, present or planned efforts made by Plaintiff, or made by others on
Plaintiff’s behalf or with Plaintiff’s knowledge, to enter into a license or other agreement
allowing for the digitization of the work for any purpose. In addition, Plaintiff has considered, is
presently considering and will continue to consider pursuing licenses or other agreements to
digitize and distribute in digital form the works identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 that
to date have only been published in paper form.
7.
For each work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2, identify any past,
present, or planned efforts made by, on behalf of or with the knowledge of [Plaintiff], to enter
any license or other agreement allowing for the digitization of the work for any purpose—
including without limitation for use in digital distribution, in an electronic database, for
archiving or preservation purposes, for non-consumptive research, for full-text searching,
and/or for use in formats accessible by the blind or others with print disabilities—as well as any
documents concerning such efforts.
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff repeats and restates its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 2.
8.
For each work identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 or 2, identify any
harm that has occurred or is expected to occur to any market or potential market for that work
by virtue of Defendants’ alleged conduct described in the First Amended Complaint, including
without limitation the identification of (i) the market or potential market at issue (by name
and/or brief description); (ii) any licensee or potential licensee of the work within that market;
and (iii) all documents concerning the alleged harm that has occurred or is expected to occur.
RESPONSE:
9
With respect to the request for information relating to works identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 2, Plaintiff repeats and restates its objections to Interrogatory No. 2. Plaintiff
further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information beyond the scope of
the parties’ agreement concerning the appropriate use of interrogatories in this action. Plaintiff
further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that Plaintiff does not seek actual damages in
this action, but an injunction under 17 U.S.C. § 502 and impoundment under 17 U.S.C. § 503,
for which it is not necessary to quantify monetary damages.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections or any General Objections,
Plaintiff’s responds to the portion of the interrogatory requesting information relating to the
works identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 as follows:
The “alleged conduct described in the First Amended Complaint,” that is, the digitization
of Plaintiff’s copyrighted content, the repeated copying and transferring of the digital files
resulting from that digitization to multiple physical and virtual locations, including on computer
systems connected to the Internet, without Plaintiff’s permission, in violation of section 501 of
the Copyright Act, has caused Plaintiff damages that are unquantifiable and irreparable. Plaintiff
asserts that those damages comprise, among other things:
•
Loss or potential loss of control over the reproduction and distribution of
Plaintiff’s copyrighted works;
•
Exposure of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works to virtually unlimited piracy;
•
Loss or potential loss of revenue from sale of hardcopies and digital copies of
works to libraries; and
•
Loss or potential loss of revenue from licensing digital copies of works to
libraries.
10
Plaintiff has to date not been able to quantify any specific revenues lost as a result of
Defendants’ infringing conduct and Plaintiff is not aware of any documents in Plaintiff’s
possession, custody or control that could be employed to quantify any specific damages incurred
as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct.
9.
For each work identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 or 2, identify any
reduction to the value or potential value of that work by virtue of Defendants’ alleged conduct
described in the First Amended Complaint, including without limitation the identification of (i)
the decline in value, measured in dollars, of each such work; and (ii) all documents and other
evidence that support the alleged decline in value.
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff repeats and restates its objections and response to Interrogatory No. 8.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUEST
1.
Documents sufficient to identify each member of [Plaintiff].
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that, by virtue of Defendants’ definition of
the term “identify,” the request would require Plaintiff to identify “the present or last known
address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of
employment,” of each and every one of its members, on the ground that it seeks confidential
information that is beyond the scope of discovery in this action.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection or any General Objections,
Plaintiff will produce documents sufficient to identify the names of each of its members.
2.
All documents identified by you in response to Defendants’ First Set of
Interrogatories to Plaintiff.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving any General Objections or other objections as set forth
herein, with the exception of Schedule A produced herewith, Plaintiff has identified no
11
documents in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control as responsive to the foregoing
interrogatories.
Dated: New York, New York
January 23, 2012
FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, P.C.
By: /s/ Jeremy S. Goldman
Edward H. Rosenthal
Jeremy S. Goldman
488 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Tel. (212) 980-0120
Fax: (212) 593-9175
erosenthal@fkks.com
jgoldman@fkks.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
TO:
Joseph M. Beck (admitted pro hac vice)
Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP (GA)
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
Tel: (404)-815-6406
Fax: (404)-541-3126
Email: jbeck@kilpatrickstockton.com
Joseph E. Petersen
Kilpatrick, Stockton
31 West 52nd. Street
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212)775-8715
Fax: (212)775-8815
Email: jpetersen@kilpatrickstockton.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Nelson E. Roth
Cornell University
Office of University Counsel
300 CCC Building, Garden Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14853
Tel: 607-255-2796
Fax: 607-255-2794
Email: ner3@cornell.edu
Attorneys for Cornell University
13
SCHEDULE A
AUTHOR
Michael Drury
TITLE
Writers Roundtable
FIRST PUBLICATION
1959/New York: Harper
SUBSEQUENT
PUB(S).
1971/Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press
MOST RECENT
PUB. HARDCOPY
OR ELECTRONIC?
Hardcopy
U.S. COPYRIGHT
REGISTRATIONS OR
RENEWALS
A00000389215
1959-04-29
RE0000364008
1987-12-30
Mignon Eberhart
The Unknown Quantity
1953/New York: Random
House
1953/New York: W.J.
Black
Hardcopy
1957/New York: Dell
A00000095320
1953-05-12
RE0000093135
1981-02-25
1963-11/New York:
Popular Library
1985/New York:
Warner Books Inc
1990-03/New York:
Warner Books
Mignon Eberhart
While the Patient Slept
1931/New York: Grosset
& Dunlap
1936/London:
Heinemann
1963/McFadden
1966-0101/MacFadden
1995/Lincoln:
University of
Nebraska Press
Hardcopy
TX0004037316
1995-05-01
AUTHOR
Mignon Eberhart
TITLE
FIRST PUBLICATION
Message from Hong Kong
1968/New York: Random
House
SUBSEQUENT
PUB(S).
1969/New York:
Random House
MOST RECENT
PUB. HARDCOPY
OR ELECTRONIC?
Hardcopy
1977/New York:
Popular Library
U.S. COPYRIGHT
REGISTRATIONS OR
RENEWALS
A00000092703
1969-02-10
RE0000787812
1998-01-09
1989/New York:
Carroll & Graf
1990/New York:
Carroll & Graf
Mignon Eberhart
Mignon Eberhart
The Mystery of Hunting’s
End
1930/New York:
Doubleday
1952/London: J. Lane
Two Little Rich Girls
1971/Random House
1971/New York:
Popular Library
Hardcopy
TX0004808570
1998-06-26
Hardcopy
A00000354733
1971-11-30;
1998/Lincoln:
University of
Nebraska Press
1971/London:
Amereon
1971/New York:
Walter J. Black
1972/London: Collins
1973/New York:
Walter J. Black
1991/England:
Chivers (Audio)
1993/Maine:
Thorndike
15
RE0000813229
1999-12-27
AUTHOR
Mignon Eberhart
TITLE
A Fighting Chance
FIRST PUBLICATION
1986/New York: Random
House
SUBSEQUENT
PUB(S).
1986/Maine:
Thorndike Press
MOST RECENT
PUB. HARDCOPY
OR ELECTRONIC?
U.S. COPYRIGHT
REGISTRATIONS OR
RENEWALS
Hardcopy
TX0001843584
1986-05-23
Hardcopy
A 855292
1925-05-08
1987/New York:
Warner Books
1987/London: Collins
1987/Vancouver:
Library Services
Branch (Audio)
1994/New York:
Time Warner
Sax Rohmer
The Dream Detective
1925/New York:
Doubleday, Page &
Company
1926/London :
Jarrolds
1940-06/London:
Amereon
R 94771
1952-05-09
1966/New York:
Pyramid Books
1977-06/New York:
Dover Publications
Sax Rohmer
Sax Rohmer
The Emperor of America
The Day the World Ended
1929/New York:
Doubleday
1929/London: Cassell
Hardcopy
1930/Leipzig, B.
Tauchnitz
1930/Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, Doran & Co.
1965-01-01/New
York: Ace Books
1976-06-01/London:
Amereon
16
A 17222
1929-11-08
R 181188
1956-11-13
Hardcopy
A 26002
1930-07-25
R 196417
1957-07-29
AUTHOR
Sax Rohmer
TITLE
The Trial of Fu Manchu
FIRST PUBLICATION
1934/New York:
Doubleday
SUBSEQUENT
PUB(S).
1957/London: Cassell
MOST RECENT
PUB. HARDCOPY
OR ELECTRONIC?
President Fu Manchu
1964/U.S.: Pyramid
1936/New York:
Doubleday
(First published serially
in London)
1966/U.S.: Pyramid
Sax Rohmer
A 76528
1934-09-12
1963/U.S.: Pyramid
Hardcopy
U.S. COPYRIGHT
REGISTRATIONS OR
RENEWALS
Hardcopy
1969/U.S.: Pyramid
A 94548
1936-05-22
R 316244
1963-05-28
1973/London
Littlehampton Book
Services
2008-01-12/England:
House of Stratus
Victor Searcher
Lincoln's Journey to
Greatness
1960/Philadelphia: J. C.
Winston
Hardcopy
A00000443382
1960-04-25
RE0000392867
1988-08-22
Barbara Hunt Watters
A Little Night Music
1947-01-01/New York:
Rinehart & Company
Hardcopy
A 13296
1947-05-29
R 596472
1975-02-04
17
VERIFICATION
I, Jan Constantine, General Counsel for Plaintiff The Authors Guild, Inc., have read the
foregoing Responses to Interrogatory Numbers 1 through 9 and know their contents. The
responses provided therein are true to my knowledge, and as to those matters stated upon
infonnation and belief, I believe them to be true. I verify under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Januaryt:23,
2012.
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?