Re: court documents in public domain?

On Sat, Oct 16, 1999, Ari Kahan <akahan[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/15/1999, Mike Holderness <mch[_at_]cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Stephen Fishman <sfish55[_at_]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know of any cases on whether court
> > > documents such as pleadings and briefs are considered
> > > to be in the public domain when they are filed in
> > > court?
> >
> > Yes: Church of Scientology -vs- ... Err... Fishman, was it?
> > California case about three years ago?
>
>
> Erlich. The other named defendants were Netcom and Klemesrud.

I don't think so. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom, which included Erlich and Klemesrud, had to do with Erlich's posting of copyrighted RTC materials on the Internet, and whether his service provider, Netcom, and BBS operator, Klemesrud, should be liable for contributory infringement. The case that Mike Holderness is thinking of is, I think, Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T. Net, 901 F. Supp. 1519 (D.Colo. 1995), which involved Scientology's efforts to prevent use and publication of certain materials that had been part of an unsealed public record in a previous court proceeding, Church of Scientology International v. Fishman, 743 F. Supp. 713 (N.D. Cal. 1990). The Mr. Fishman of that case was accused of mail fraud and pleaded temporary insanity based on the allegation that he had been brainwashed by the Church of Scientology. Certain church documents were presented in evidence; and thereby, according to the later holding, lost their status as trade secrets. I do not believe they were held to be in the public domain for copyright purposes, however; at least not as a result of their having been filed in court.

Bob

Robert C. Cumbow
> Graham & Dunn, P.C.
> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
> Seattle, Washington 98101-2390
> Phone: 206-340-9619
> Fax: 206-340-9599
> E-mail: rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
> Website: http://www.grahamdunn.com/
Received on Mon Oct 18 1999 - 17:21:21 GMT