In February, Plaintiffs filed a summary judgment motion on the Copyright Clause claim. The motion has been fully briefed. Here is the Government's opposition, and Plaintiff's replybriefs.
The CIS filed this suit on behalf of a University of Denver, Colorado conductor and others, seeking to have the CTEA and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act declared unconstitutional. The suit challenges Congress’s ability to reclassify works that have already passed into the public domain as copyrighted, thereby giving ownership back to private entities.
In February, Plaintiffs filed a summary judgment motion on the Copyright Clause claim. The motion has been fully briefed. Here is the Government's opposition, and Plaintiff's replybriefs.
The Government's reply brief in support of summary judgment was filed on Nov. 24, 2004. No hearing date is presently scheduled for this motion.
Chief Judge Babcock today affirmed Magistrate Judge Boland's ruling in August in which he granted in part Plaintiff's 56(f) motion and denied the government's motion for a protective order to stay discovery. The order is short and to the point.
This brings to close a rather lengthy series of motions from the summer months. Currently, we are awaiting the government's reply on its summary judgment motion, and we are working to complete discovery.
We filed a brief and several declarations in opposition to the government's motion for summary judgment on November 4.
We had a great team of lawyers, law students and experts who helped put the Plaintiffs' opposition brief and supporting declarations together. Thanks to all for their great work.
Here is the brief, exhibit A and exhibits B-E.
The government filed its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on October 12.
The October 2004 issue of Law Office Computing magazine published this article about the Golan v. Ashcroft website. We are using this website to collect information and obtain more stories from the public to support the case. Go to the link and tell us your story!
The government wasn't happy about Judge Boland's decision allowing discovery and permitting Plaintiffs to develop evidence to contradict summary judgment. In fact, as noted before, it appealed Judge Boland's ruling to Chief Judge Babcock. Today, we filed Plaintiff's brief opposing the government's objection. We argue that Judge Boland's decision is consistent with precedent, and reflects the sound discretion of district courts in determining discovery issues. The Order should not be disturbed absent "clear error." As Judge Kane (also D.
Chief Judge Babcock issued an Order on Friday granting Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. The Second Amended Complaint has been accepted for filing.
The government has filed an objection to the decision of Magistrate Judge Boland ordering discovery to go forward in the case. We will oppose the government's objection.
We filed our reply brief on the Motion to Amend last Friday.