by
Samuel
Corum/Getty
Images)
Buckle
up,
because
we’ve
got
a
new
entry
in
the
“no,
you
can’t
file
copyright
claims
over
something
you
put
on
the
public
docket”
sweepstakes.
A
Texas-based
researcher
named
Lindsay
Olson
was
paid
$30,000
by
a
law
firm
representing
a
January
6
defendant
to
conduct
a
“community
attitude”
survey
about
D.C.
jurors’
feelings
toward
the
Capitol
rioters.
Her
conclusion
was
that
D.C.
residents
felt
about
as
much
sympathy
for
insurrectionists
as
they
do
for
telemarketers
if
those
telemarketers
also
tried
to
hang
the
Vice
President
on
livestream.
Those
attorneys
did
what
lawyers
do:
they
filed
it
with
their
venue
change
motion
on
the
public
docket.
From
there,
the
lawyers
for
other
defendants
did
what
they
do:
they
pulled
the
public
filing,
attached
it
to
their
own
motions,
and
also
argued
that
D.C.
jurors
were
unduly
biased
against
people
attempting
to
overthrow
the
government.
All
of
these
motions
failed.
But
now
Olson
has
sued
a
couple
attorneys
for
including
the
report
in
their
own
motions
claiming
they
“pirated”
her
expert
report
without
paying
her
the
requisite
$30,000
fee
that
she
charged
the
first
lawyers.
She’s
also
suing
the
Trump
administration
to
the
extent
federal
public
defenders
used
the
report
—
which
she
claims
happened
at
least
11
times
—
and
there’s
a
satisfying
irony
to
Trump
pardoning
all
these
people
and
still
being
potentially
on
the
hook
for
how
they
were
defended.
There
shouldn’t
be
any
argument
that
the
report
was
a
valuable
work
of
intellectual
property.
It
reflects
Olson’s
expertise,
judgment,
and
effort.
She
could
absolutely
claim
copyright
protection
over
it…
until
it
entered
the
public
domain.
This
is
a
topic
we’ve
had
occasion
to
deal
with
before,
when
a
boutique
law
firm
sued
Winston
&
Strawn
over
cribbing
from
a
motion
to
dismiss
filed
in
a
related
case.
That
case
tried
to
bootstrap
protections
against
online
legal
research
databases
profiting
off
motions
to
a
claim
against
any
lawyer
copying
another
firm’s
filed
motion.
The
argument
was
quite
dumb,
though
we’ll
never
know
how
it
turned
out
because
Winston
settled
for
undisclosed
terms.
This
time
it’s
not
a
rival
law
firm,
but
an
expert
report,
but
the
conclusion
is
the
same.
If
authors
could
claim
intellectual
property
rights
over
their
explicitly
intended
for
litigation
work
product
after
it
enters
the
docket,
it
defeats
the
whole
purpose
of
a
common
law
legal
system.
These
venue
motions
were
consistently
unsuccessful,
but
imagine
if
one
had
prevailed.
In
such
a
world,
the
law
could
not
be
such
an
ass
as
to
tell
similarly
situated
defendants
“the
court
has
found
that
the
jury
pool
is
biased…
but
please
deposit
your
$30,000
before
we
give
you
access
to
that
legal
conclusion.”
Access
to
justice
is
baked
into
any
case
that
involves
experts,
but
the
idea
that
a
relatively
deep-pocketed
litigant
can
commission
a
report
and
poorer
litigants
have
to
pay
an
additional
toll
to
access
it
creates
a
dystopian
justice
model.
Upon
hearing
about
these
lawsuits,
my
first
instinct
was
that
Olson
is
suing
the
wrong
parties,
and
that
her
claim
must
rest
against
her
original
clients
who
posted
the
report
because
—
I
assumed
—
the
terms
of
that
deal
had
to
include
some
provision
that
they
would
not
post
it
in
full
on
the
public
docket.
Alas,
that’s
not
the
case!
From
the
complaint
in
Olson
v.
Webb,
one
of
the
suits
filed
in
the
Southern
District
of
Florida:
After
Plaintiff
delivered
a
copy
of
the
Report
to
the
Requesting
Attorneys,
they
and
[sic]
uploaded
a
copy
of
the
Report
to
the
Court’s
public
docket
in
1:22-cr-00015-APM
(Dkt.
654-1)
and
in
1:21-cr-00028-APM
(Dkt.
93-1)
(otherwise
known
as
the
Oath
Keepers
case
consolidated
for
trial
and
jury
selection),
causing
a
public
display
of
the
Report
in
support
of
a
motion
to
transfer
venue,
as
authorized
by
Plaintiff
in
exchange
for
the
required
$30,000
payment.
She
authorized
the
publication
on
the
docket!
The
fact
that
Defendants
made
an
authorized
copy
of
the
Report
from
the
Internet
(PACER)
and
downloaded
a
copy
which
was
available
through
PACER,
does
not
mean
that
the
Report
was
in
the
public
domain
or
unconditionally
free
to
publicly
display
a
copy
of
the
Report
for
the
very
same
purpose
it
was
created
and
offered
in
the
market.
It
kinda
does,
though.
Any
other
outcome
would
undermine
the
purpose
of
a
legal
system
based
upon
delivering
consistent
outcomes
for
parties.
It
also
quickly
becomes
a
silly
argument
because
Olson
concedes
—
as
she
must
—
that
other
lawyers
were
free
to
refer
to
the
report
on
the
docket
when
defending
other
clients,
but
claims
it
went
too
far
when
those
lawyers
attached
the
report:
Notably,
other
lawyers
representing
J6
defendants
who
filed
motions
to
transfer
venue
only
referenced
that
the
Report
existed
but
did
not
copy
and
upload
for
public
display
the
Report
in
its
entirety
and
instead
summarized
the
lawyer’s
conclusion
of
the
Report.
So,
the
intellectual
property
can
be
invoked,
but
only
if
lawyers
tell
a
federal
judge,
“You
have
PACER,
look
it
up
your
own
damn
self!”
That
strikes
me
as…
untenable.
Judges
appreciate
having
all
the
relevant
material
in
one
packet
as
opposed
to
lawyers
referencing
evidence
as
“a
surprise
tool
that
can
help
us
later.”
And
it’s
not
like
the
lawyers
paying
her
fee
aren’t
getting
value
above
and
beyond
anyone
simply
attaching
the
report
to
their
own
motions.
When
there’s
oral
argument,
Olson’s
clients
can
consult
with
her
about
the
finer
points
of
the
report.
If
a
judge
wants
further
briefing,
her
paying
customers
will
have
access
to
her
expertise.
In
the
event
some
judge
seeks
limited
testimony,
the
lawyers
who’ve
ponied
up
the
cash
will
end
up
having
access
to
her
as
a
witness.
All
of
that
matters.
It’s
hard
not
to
feel
for
Olson.
She
did
a
lot
of
work.
She
got
paid
once,
and
now
her
product
is
circulating
freely
among
the
defense
bar
like
a
bad
chain
email
from
2003.
But
that’s
the
natural
life
cycle
of
a
publicly
filed
document
in
the
legal
system.
If
someone
tried
to
snake
it
off
the
docket
and
use
it
for
a
non-legal
purpose,
it
raises
different
concerns.
But
this
is,
fundamentally,
a
piece
of
legal
advocacy,
and
if
lawyers
aren’t
free
to
use
it
to
advance
similar
legal
advocacy,
the
system
breaks.
Legal
arguments
can’t
be
hoarded
to
the
exclusive
benefit
of
one
party
once
they’re
out
there.
Was
she
planning
to
sue
the
judges
if
they
quoted
from
the
report
in
their
opinions?
See
how
none
of
this
makes
sense
the
more
you
game
it
out?
If
she
wanted
to
limit
the
circulation
of
the
full
breadth
of
her
work,
she
could’ve
put
more
limits
on
the
license
she
gave
the
first
attorneys.
Or,
better,
she
should’ve
negotiated
for
more
money
up
front
knowing
that
she
was
providing
her
clients
with
a
first
actor
advantage.
She
deserves
to
get
paid.
But
this
should
not
become
an
intellectual
property
issue.
(The
Webb
complaint
available
on
the
next
page…)
Attorneys
for
Jan.
6
defendants
face
lawsuits
for
plagiarism
[CBS
News]
Earlier:
Boutique
Sues
Winston
&
Strawn
For
Violating
‘Copyright’
In
Rule
12
Brief
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.