A Pair of Lawyers, One from Oklahoma and One from New York, Sue West and LexisNexis for Reproducing Their Court Filings

Oklahoma lawyer Edward L. White and New York lawyer Kenneth Elan sued West Publishing and Reed Elsevier yesterday in the Southern District of New York — White et al v. West Publishing Corporation et al (12-cv-01340-JSR ~ Judge Jed S. Rakoff) — for reproducing their documents in the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases.

See:

Two Lawyers Sue West and LexisNexis for Reproducing Legal Briefs

See also:

Class Action Complaint

For other blog coverage, see:

How Appealing

Volokh Conspiracy

Wall Street Journal Law Blog

The docket sheet as of today is as follows:

U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv-01340-JSR

 

White et al v. West Publishing Corporation et al

Date Filed:

Feb. 22, 2012

Nature of suit:

820 Copyright

Assigned to:

Judge Jed S. Rakoff

Cause:

17:101 Copyright Infringement

Jurisdiction:

Federal Question

Jury demand:

Plaintiff

Parties and Attorneys

Plaintiff

Edward L. White
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Attorneys and Firms

Gregory A. Blue
Gregory A. Blue, P.C.
405 Lexington Ave., 26th Floor
New York, NY 10174
(646) 351-0006
blue@bluelegal.us
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Raymond A. Bragar
Morgenstern Jacbos & Blue, LLC (NY)
885 Third Avenue
24th Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 750-6776
Fax: (212) 750-3128
bragar@bragarwexler.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Plaintiff

Edward L. White, P.C.
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Attorneys and Firms

Gregory A. Blue
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Raymond A. Bragar
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Plaintiff

Kenneth Elan
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Attorneys and Firms

Gregory A. Blue
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Raymond A. Bragar
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Defendant

West Publishing Corporation doing business as: West

Defendant

Reed Elsevier Inc. doing business as: LexisNexis

 

 

Docket Proceedings

 

Filed

#

Docket Text

 

 

 

1

Feb. 22, 2012 

COMPLAINT against Reed Elsevier Inc., West Publishing Corporation. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 1030502)Document filed by Edward L. White, Edward L. White, P.C., Kenneth Elan.(mro) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

2

Feb. 22, 2012 

SUMMONS ISSUED as to Reed Elsevier Inc., West Publishing Corporation. (mro) Modified on 2/23/2012 (mro). (Entered: 02/23/2012)

3

Feb. 22, 2012 

Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis is so designated. (mro) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

4

Feb. 22, 2012 

Case Designated ECF. (mro) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

5

Feb. 22, 2012 

Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (mro) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

6

Feb. 22, 2012 

 

STANDING ORDER IN RE PILOT PROJECT REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR COMPLEX CIVIL CASES IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (See M-10-468 Order filed November 1, 2011). This case is hereby designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District of New York (the Pilot Project), unless the judge to whom this case is assigned determines otherwise. This case is designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project because it is a class action, an MDL action, or is in one of the following Nature of Suit categories: 160, 245, 315, 355, 365, 385, 410, 830, 840, 850, 893, or 950. The presiding judge in a case that does not otherwise qualify for inclusion in the Pilot Project may nevertheless designate the case for inclusion in the Pilot Project by issuing an order directing that the case be included in the Pilot Project. The description of the Pilot Project, including procedures to be followed, is attached to this Order. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 10/31/2011) (mro) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

 

 

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates Supports Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act (UELMA)

The American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates has approved a resolution — Resolution 102B — in support of the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act (UELMA) of the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) of the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws as to the authentication and preservation of laws, court decisions and other legal materials that are published online.

See:

ABA Supports Uniform Law for Online Publication of Court Decisions and Laws

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.

LexisNexis Launches “Social Media Visibility”

Online provider of legal research, news and other content LexisNexis, has launched a new service: LexisNexis Social Media Visibility.

According to the press release here, the new service enables solo practitioners and lawyers at smaller law firms to establish a solid, comprehensive, and manageable social media presence.

LexisNexis Social Media Visibility includes creation of an exclusive blog page as well as guidance and assistance in crafting profiles and in generating and posting appropriate content on major social media websites, including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.

LexisNexis Updates Free Caselaw and Forms from lexisONE Community to LexisNexis Community

LexisNexis has recently updated its free caselaw and forms access from lexisONE Community to:

LexisNexis Community

For links to some other free legal research resources (for caselaw, statutes, regulations, etc) online, take a look too at:

Brief Guide to Low/No Cost Online American Legal Research

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

Revised (5th Edition) of “Locating the Law”

The Public Access to Legal Information (PALI) Committee of the Southern California Association of Law Libraries (SOCALL) has posted online its handy and valuable:

Locating the Law: A Handbook for Non-Law Librarians
Fifth Edition, Revised (2011)

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

Maplecroft Human Rights Risk Index 2012

Specialist multidisciplinary research (in risk intelligence and corporate responsibility) and advisory company Maplecroft, headquartered in Bath, England, has released its:

Human Rights Risk Map 2012

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.

Broad Facts of Income Inequality Over the Past 60 Years Summarized

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has posted a convenient 4-section guide on historical trends in income equality:

A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

LexisNexis Introduces CourtLink Hourly Alerts

LexisNexis has announced that its docket service product CourtLink is now offering hourly alerts on newly-filed federal cases — please see:

Reed Elsevier plc : LexisNexis Introduces CourtLink Hourly Alerts

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

California Judicial Council agrees to explore accepting private grant money for computerized case management in 3 superior courts

California’s Judicial Council is exploring whether to accept private grant money (perhaps as much as $20 million) to help deploy its computerized case management system in three superior courts.

The three superior courts will be in:

  1. San Luis Obispo County
  2. Ventura County
  3. Fresno County

Please see:

Judicial Council approves possible private
funding for case management system

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

Legal Issues in Mass Digitization: A Preliminary Analysis and Discussion Document

The U.S. Copyright Office last month posted

Legal Issues in Mass Digitization: A Preliminary Analysis and Discussion Document

The Copyright Office explains here that this analytical document:

addresses the issues raised by the intersection between copyright law and the mass digitization of books. The purpose of the Analysis is to facilitate further discussions among the affected parties and the public – discussions that may encompass a number of possible approaches, including voluntary initiatives, legislative options, or both. The Analysis also identifies questions to consider in determining an appropriate policy for the mass digitization of books.
Public discourse on mass digitization is particularly timely. On March 22, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a proposed settlement in the copyright infringement litigation regarding Google’s mass book digitization project. The court found that the settlement would have redefined the relationship between copyright law and new technology, and it would have encroached upon Congress’s ability to set copyright policy with respect to orphan works. Since then, a group of authors has filed a lawsuit against five university libraries that participated in Google’s mass digitization project. These developments have sparked a public debate on the risks and opportunities that mass book digitization may create for authors, publishers, libraries, technology companies, and the general public. The Office’s Analysis will serve as a basis for further policy discussions on this issue.

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.