[8882] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: JURIS - DOJ rejects TAP FOIA Request
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Sugarman)
Thu Dec 9 12:33:25 1993
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 11:41:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Sugarman <sugarman@panix.com>
To: Steve Haynes <shaynes@research.westlaw.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, mark@drd.com
In-Reply-To: <9312091606.AA08146@research.westlaw.com>
On Thu, 9 Dec 1993, Steve Haynes of West Publishing Co. wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Dec 93 16:36:04 CST Mark Lawrence wrote (responding to
> a posting by Tim Sprehe):
>
> But much caselaw _is_ available in this form. Most of the
> federal appellate courts and many state courts make their
> decisions available electronically on bulletin boards.
>
Steve, it is true that versions of some court opinions are available on
court bullttin boards. Significantly, however, not available are versions
with corrections and sometimes amendments, which in many situations are
privately
negotiated between West and the judge or the judges chambers. Sometimes
these changes do not even appear in paper versions on file with the court.
Alos, official court pagination is generally omitted from these files as
is other significant information such as the names of counsel (especially
where West is the slip printer).
Now, let us look at how it works for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. Very recently, the
Administrative Office of the US Courts signed a sole source contract with
West to print the slip opinions for the court. These are the versions of
the opinions first handed down by the court, unless they are handed down
in manuscript form, which over half are.
The court generally sends the decsions to West in wordprocessing files.
West cleans up the files, and, interestingly, adds copyrighted headnotes
for the slip opinions, as required by the contract. West also provide
page numbering for the Court version of the slip opinions. These are
not the same as the West page numbers that West claims are
copyrighted, notwitstanding the Feist decision. West at this time
then creates an electronic database and prints the slip opinions for
distribution to the mailing list provided by the Fifth Circuit.
West sends the database, or an extract thereof, back to the Fifth Circuit.
The database however, or at least the version posted on the Court
bulletin board, deletes the courts pagination.
If the court has not announced the decision, then the West version goes on
the Court bulletin board. If the court hands down the decision in
manuscript form, then the judges word processing file goes on the bulletin
board. It is not thereafter replaced by the West version. As one might
guess, more than a few files are "lost" and never get posted. Of course,
West as the official printer has the full set, corrected at tax payer expense.
After a decision is published by a court, numerous corrections are made to
the decision. These may be minor typographical errors and citation
corrections, most of which corrected by West under its slip contract,
Thus, the slip opinions are of higher quality than the manuscript version
release by the court. West under is contract has a complete high quality
database. The public gains access to an incomplete database, where over
half the files are of lower quality since they came directly from the
courts manuscript files.
The court does not post corrections to these opinions.
But, what else, West can post the decisions the same day on WestLaw. Lexis
has to scramble and piece together the stuff West gets under the contract.
West then turns around and feeds the database into its Federal Reporter
advance sheets which are paperbound volumes, again, beating others since
they had prior access to the information.
But wait, there are also other changes made to the decision over a period
of weeks or even months. Some are formal amendments to the decisions. The
Fifth Circuit says that it provides these corrections to West and Lexis
for free ... but, says that my company, HyperLaw must pay .50 a page.
But wait. Lexis does not get all of the corrections. From time to time
West editors and the judge discuss changes over the telephone, and they
are made in the final bound volumes. Only West and the judge knows what
happened.
But wait, the court also gives the names of attorneys to WEst which
publishes them in its Federal Reporter, but not in the slip opinions.
And, Steve, correct me if I am wrong, but is not West claiming in the
copyright infringment case going on in the Northern District of Georgia,
West v. Gross, 93-2071, that when the CD-ROM publihser copied the names of
attorneys from the West Sourther Reporter that such copying violated a
West Copyright.
Wait, what does the contract between West and the Administrative Office
say. Ha. West requires the administrative office to sign a non-disclosure
agreement. Ask for the contract, anyone, and see how long you wait for
just a response from the AO. And, if you ever get anything,
significant information will be whited out by the administrative office,
which claims not to be subject to the FOIA.
Now, I ask the readers here how many private sector publishers hire a
typesetting or printing firm and permitt the typesetter to own the
database created. None. So, what is going on here.
This, is only the fifth circuit. Do you wish to tell us how it works in
the Eleventh Circuit. What about telling us how federal district court
decision are disseminated. What is WestSend. What about the
conversations between West and the district court chambers etc.
By the way, I bought dinner last time. You owe me one.
Alan
