chunk_id int64 0 365 | chunk_text stringlengths 2 2.45k | filename stringclasses 8
values | page_numbers listlengths 1 3 | title stringlengths 1 263 ⌀ | source_file stringclasses 8
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the ... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
1
] | null | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
1 | No. 24CA0190, Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC -Landlords and Tenants - Warranty of Habitability - Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; Technology - Artificial Intelligence - Generative AI Tools - Hallucinations; Colorado Rules of Appellate Procedure - Briefs - Citation to Authorities - Sanctions for Non-Compliance
Si... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
1,
2,
3
] | 2024COA128 | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
2 | Division I Opinion by JUDGE LIPINSKY J. Jones and Sullivan, JJ., concur
Announced December 26, 2024
Alim Al-Hamim, Pro Se
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, John R. Mann, Greg S. Hearing II, Brittney T. Bulawa, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees
- ¶ 1 The recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), and tex... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
3,
4,
5
] | JUDGMENT AFFIRMED | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
3 | - ¶ 3 Some self-represented litigants, including plaintiff, Alim Al-Hamim, have relied on GAI tools to draft court filings, only to discover later to their chagrin that their filings contained hallucinations. AlHamim's opening brief in this appeal contained hallucinations, as well as bona fide legal citations. This c... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
5,
6
] | JUDGMENT AFFIRMED | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
4 | - ¶ 5 Star Hearthstone rented an apartment to Al-Hamim and his cotenants in April 2020. Al-Hamim alleged in his complaint that IRT Living managed the apartment complex for a portion of the time he rented the apartment.
- ¶ 6 Al-Hamim pleaded that, in early 2021, shortly after he moved into the apartment, he 'noticed a... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
6,
7
] | I. Background | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
5 | - ¶ 10 Al-Hamim contends that the court erred by granting the landlords ' motion to dismiss. Specifically, he argues that the court of habitability and the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.
- erred by determining that the landlords did not breach the warranty Additionally, he asserts that the court improperly faile... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
8
] | II. The Court Did Not Err by Dismissing the Case | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
6 | - ¶ 11 Because Al-Hamim represented himself throughout the case, we must liberally interpret his complaint and response to the landlords' dismissal motion . See People v. Bergerud , 223 P.3d 686, 697 (Colo. 2010). But Al-Hamim 's status as a self-represented litigant does not excuse his noncompliance with the procedur... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
8,
9
] | A. Standard of Review | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
7 | § 38-12-503(1), C.R.S. 2023. (The Colorado General Assembly amended the warranty of habitability statute in 2024. See secs. 3, 5, §§ 38-12-503, -505, 2024 Colo. Sess. Laws 704-17. We cite the version of the statute in effect when Al-Hamim filed his complaint. Because the General Assembly considers 'premises' to be a ... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
9,
10
] | A. Standard of Review | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
8 | statute because Al-Hamim did not allege that the cat odor or urine stains affected his life or safety. Viewing the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to Al-Hamim, see Jagged Peak Energy Inc. , ¶ 25, 523 P.3d at 446, his allegation that the cat urine smell and stains impacted his health rested on ... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
11
] | A. Standard of Review | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
9 | - ¶ 17 For these reasons, we hold that the court did not err by concluding that Al-Hamim failed to plead an actionable claim for breach of the warranty of habitability.
- C. Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
- ¶ 18 ' [I]n the absence of an agreement to the contrary, there is an implied covenant for the quiet enjoymen... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
12,
13
] | A. Standard of Review | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
10 | - ¶ 19 Al-Hamim alleged that '[t]he landlord [s ' ] refusal to replace the cat-urine-stained carpet, despite repeated complaints . . . , resulted in a significant disruption to [his] quiet enjoyment of the apartment.' He asserted that the landlords breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment because the issues inv... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
13,
14
] | A. Standard of Review | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
11 | - ¶ 21 Further, Al-Hamim does not cite any legal authority holding that a strain on cotenant s' relationships can result in a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. Nor did Al-Hamim allege that the carpet odor and staining resulted in a constructive eviction. To the contrary, Al-Hamim conceded in his compl... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
14
] | A. Standard of Review | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
12 | ¶ 23 Al-Hamim raises the following claims for the first time in his opening brief:
- The landlords 'breached the lease agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to resolve maintenance issues and by conducting arbitrary credit checks.'
- '[T]he leasing agent made fraudulent representat... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
15,
16
] | D. Other Issues | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
13 | - III. Court Filings with GAI-Produced Hallucinations
- A. The Hallucinations in AlHamim's Opening Brief
3. ¶ 25 AlHamim's opening brief contains citations to the following fake cases:
- Beck v. Tibbetts , 967 P.2d 150 (Colo. 1998);
- Jankowski v. Cross , 672 P.2d 1178 (Colo. App. 1983);
- L&M Inv. Co. v. Morrison , 46... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
16,
17
] | D. Other Issues | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
14 | - B. The Risks of Relying on a GAI Tool to Draft a Court Filing ¶ 27 To explain why a GAI tool can produce legal documents filled with hallucinations, we briefly review the large language model (LLM) underlying GAI technology.
2. ¶ 28 GAI tools are trained using LLMs that, ' through a form of machine learning known as ... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
17,
18
] | D. Other Issues | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
15 | - ¶ 29 The limitations of and biases contained in the materials used to train an LLM can produce outputs that reflect the shortcomings in the LLM's training. As of mid -2024, popular GAI tools, such as OpenAI's GPT -4, were not ' trained with data sets containing comprehensive, accurate legal resources. ' Id. These wi... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
18,
19
] | D. Other Issues | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
16 | - ¶ 31 ' Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions. ' Mata , 678 F. Supp. 3d at 448. These include wasting the opposing party 's ' time and money in exposing the deception ,' taking the court's time ' from other important endeavors ,' and potentially harming the reputations of ' judges and courts whose name... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
19,
20,
21
] | D. Other Issues | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
17 | submission of a brief filled with ChatGPT-generated hallucinations in
Mata
.
See, e.g.
, Benjamin Weiser,
Here's What Happens When
, N.Y. Times (May 27, 2023),
Your Lawyer Uses ChatGPT
https://perma.cc/H4DC-JWH2; Larry Neumeister, Lawyers Submitted Bogus Case Law Created by ChatGPT. A Judge Fined Them $5,000 , Associa... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
21,
22
] | D. Other Issues | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
18 | 2024 WL 3460049, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024) (unpublished opinion). The court noted that ' [s]anctions may be imposed for submitting false and nonexistent legal authority to the [c]ourt. ' Id. However, the court declined to impose sanctions due to the plaintiff ' s status as a self-represented litigant and, instead... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
23
] | D. Other Issues | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
19 | Morgan v. Cmty. Against Violence , No. 23-cv-353-WPJ/JMR, 2023 WL 6976510, at *8 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2023) (unpublished opinion) (asserting that the self-represented status of a plaintiff who ' cited to several fake or nonexistent opinions ' will ' not be tolerated by the [c]ourt as an excuse for failing to adhere to this... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
24,
25
] | D. Other Issues | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
20 | - ¶ 39 While we conclude that AlHamim's submission of a brief containing hallucinations violated C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B), this deviation from the Appellate Rules was not as serious as the self-represented appellant's misconduct in Kruse . Further, in his response to our show cause order, Al-Hamim acknowledged his use of AI... | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
25,
26
] | D. Other Issues | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
21 | - The judgment is affirmed. JUDGE J. JONES and JUDGE SULLIVAN concur.
- ¶ 42 | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc.pdf | [
26
] | IV. Disposition | al-hamim_v._star_hearthstone_llc_chunks.json |
22 | SAM BIDDLE,
Plaintiff , v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant . | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
1
] | null | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
23 | Civil Action No. 23-1380 (TJK) | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
1
] | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
24 | Plaintiff Sam Biddle submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Defense seeking 'records pertaining to the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team's use of Google technology, software or hardware,' from January 1, 2017, to March 6, 2018. The Department identified about 5,000 pages of respons... | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
1,
2
] | MEMORANDUM ORDER | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
25 | In FOIA cases in which an agency invokes any FOIA exemption, the 'burden is on the agency to justify withholding the requested documents, and the FOIA directs district courts to determine de novo whether non-disclosure was permissible.' EPIC v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 777 F.3d 518, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2015). When conducti... | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
2
] | MEMORANDUM ORDER | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
26 | carefully any material withheld, it enables the trial court to fulfill its duty of ruling on the applicability of the exemption, and it enables the adversary system to operate by giving the requester as much information as possible, on the basis of which he can present his case to the trial court.' Lykins v. Dep't of J... | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
3
] | MEMORANDUM ORDER | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
27 | But the Department's affidavit is not 'furnished with sufficient information' for the Court to decide summary judgment 'in a meaningful fashion.' King , 830 F.2d at 223. It has provided
almost no specific information about the 5,000 pages it seeks to withhold for the Court to determine whether they are in fact 'critic... | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
3,
4
] | 10 U.S.C. § 130e(f). | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
28 | Aside from whether the Department's 'approach to artificial intelligence development and implementation' should be considered 'critical infrastructure,' the Department's affidavit is
deficient in showing that its withholdings qualify as 'critical infrastructure security information' in other ways. For example... | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
4,
5
] | 10 U.S.C. § 130e(f). | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
29 | 1 To be sure, the affidavit describes a long list of the types of information in the Department's withholdings. See ECF No. 14-1 at 4. But those descriptions do not make up for the deficiencies described above. 'Time and again, courts in this Circuit have stressed that the government cannot justify its withholdings o... | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
5,
6
] | 10 U.S.C. § 130e(f). | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
30 | Finally, the Court notes that the Department invokes other FOIA exemptions, including Exemptions 4, 5, and 6, but does not attempt to justify its withholdings under them, instead reserving the right to do so at another other time, presumably through another motion. See ECF No. 14 at 3 n.2. While the Court appreciates ... | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
6
] | 10 U.S.C. § 130e(f). | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
31 | 3 The Court also questions whether the Department has sufficiently shown that it conducted an adequate segregability analysis. FOIA requires that '[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt.' 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).... | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
6,
7
] | 10 U.S.C. § 130e(f). | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
32 | For all the above reasons, the Court finds that the Department has failed to provide a sufficient basis to justify it withholdings under FOIA's Exemption 3. Thus, it will deny the Department's motion without prejudice and permit it to file a renewed motion, which must include all exemptions it seeks to invoke, includi... | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
7,
8
] | 10 U.S.C. § 130e(f). | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
33 | Date: September 13, 2024
/s/ Timothy J. Kelly TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense.pdf | [
8
] | SO ORDERED. | biddle_v._u.s._department_of_defense_chunks.json |
34 | Plaintiff, v. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
1
] | ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER , | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
35 | Defendants. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
1
] | NATIONAL SECURITY COMMISSION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, et al. , | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
36 | The Roman god Janus famously has two faces. One looks backward, toward the past; the other looks forward, toward the future. Mythologists understand his two-faced depiction as complementary, not contradictory. 1 It means that every beginning has an ending, every ending a beginning. Like a doorway, Janus looks both w... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
1,
2
] | MEMORANDUM OPINION | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
37 | The Court's previous opinion provides background on the Commission and EPIC's suit. See NSCAI , 419 F. Supp. 3d at 83-85. A quick refresher is in order. Two years ago, Congress 'established in the executive branch an independent Commission to review advances in artificial intelligence, related machine learning develop... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
2,
3
] | I. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
38 | § 1051(b)(1). The Commission must report The Commission was originally set to end this October, but Congress recently extended its life by a year. See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 ('2020 NDAA'), Pub. L. No. 116-92, § 1735(a), 133 Stat. 1198, 1819 (2019). Its next interim report is due by th... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
3
] | I. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
39 | 1, ECF No. 4. The Court denied the motion, finding that EPIC had failed to show irreparable harm. Tr. of Prelim. Inj. Hr'g at 46-47, ECF No. 22. The Government then moved to dismiss EPIC's FOIA claims, mainly arguing that the Commission is not an 'agency' subject to FOIA, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). The Court rejected... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
4
] | I. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
40 | The Government's motion to dismiss invokes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defs.' Mot. at 1. To survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a plaintiff must establish the
Court's jurisdiction over its claims. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). The Court must 'assume the truth of al... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
4,
5
] | I. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
41 | The heart of the dispute here is whether the Commission is an 'advisory committee' subject to FACA. But before resolving that, the Court must address some threshold issues.
To start, the Court will dismiss EPIC's APA claims for lack of jurisdiction. 'Absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Federal Government is im... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
5,
6
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
42 | Both parties assume the Court's previous opinion answered this question in the affirmative. See Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ('Defs.' Mem.') at 14, 16 n.2, ECF No. 28-1; Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ('Pl.'s Mem.') at 28, ECF No. 31-1. But they are mistaken. The opinion did not hold that the Com... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
6
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
43 | The chronology behind these definitions is key. Before 1974, 'each authority of the Government' was the sole definition of 'agency' for both the APA and FOIA. See id. § 551(1) (stating that the APA's definition of 'agency' applies '[f]or the purpose of this subchapter,' which includes FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552); Energy Res... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
7
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
44 | 3 Though Soucie cited only § 551(1), see 448 F.2d at 1073 n.13, its interpretation applies equally to the identical phrase in § 701(b)(1). See Ralpho v. Bell , 569 F.2d 607, 616 & n.54 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (citing Soucie , among other authorities, in concluding that the Micronesian Claims Commission is an 'agency' under § ... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
7,
8
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
45 | Energy Research was the template for the Court's opinion. It held that the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was an 'agency' under FOIA because the Board's organic statute called it an 'establishment in the executive branch,' one of the categories in § 552(f)(1). Id. at 582-83. And there was 'nothing to indicat... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
8,
9
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
46 | at 89. 'The text of § 552(f)(1)' was Then, relying on the dicta from Energy Research , the Court suggested in passing that the Commission exercises 'substantial independent authority' and thus could meet Soucie 's functional test, too. Id. at 89-90. Still, the Court made clear that this functional test was 'not relev... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
9,
10
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
47 | And upon closer examination, the Court finds that the Commission is not an agency under § 551(1) or § 701(b)(1). The D.C. Circuit's cases highlight two factors that are central to whether an entity wields 'substantial independent authority': investigative power and authority to make final and binding decisions.
Consi... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
10
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
48 | applications, but the authority to make 'final and binding' decisions rested with the NIMH, not the IRGs. Id. at 248 & n.15. It did not matter that the NIMH 'may be greatly influenced' by an IRG's 'expert view.' Id. at 248. Given the functions that IRGs were 'empowered by law to perform,' they did not wield 'substant... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
11
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
49 | Sweetland v. Walters
, 60 F.3d 852, 854
, 981 F.2d 1288, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1993);
Econ. Advisers
Meyer v. Bush
, 762 F.2d 1038, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1985);
, 636 F.2d 1259, 1263 (D.C. Cir. 1980);
Quality
(D.C. Cir. 1978), rev'd on other grounds
Rushforth v. Council of
Pac. Legal Found. v. Council on Envtl.
Sierra Club v. Andr... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
11,
12
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
50 | More, the requirement of 'substantial' authority suggests that the entity should be at the 'center of gravity in the exercise of administrative power.' Id. at 882 (quoting Lombardo v. Handler , 397 F. Supp. 792, 796 (D.D.C. 1975), aff'd , 546 F.2d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). On this basis, the National Academy of Sciences... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
12,
13
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
51 | Given these considerations, the Commission does not exercise 'substantial independent authority.' Accord Flaherty v. Ross , 373 F. Supp. 3d 97, 106-10 (D.D.C. 2019). 5 The upshot is that the Commission is an 'agency' under § 552(f)(1) but not an 'agency' under § 551(1) or § 701(b)(1), exactly the sort of entity Congres... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
13
] | III. A. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
52 | That leaves Counts I and IV; EPIC labels both as 'Violation of the FACA.' Compl. at 28, 31. EPIC 'does not assert that it has a cause of action under' FACA. Pl.'s Mem. at 30 n.2; see, e.g. , EPIC v. Drone Advisory Comm. , 369 F. Supp. 3d 27, 36-38 (D.D.C. 2019) (concluding that FACA does not confer a private right o... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
14
] | B. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
53 | And the merits question here is whether the Commission is an 'advisory committee' under 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 3(2), because if it is, then it must comply with FACA's requirements. See 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 4(a), 10. To this question the Court now turns.
6
The Defendants listed for Counts I and IV are the Commission and two o... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
14
] | B. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
54 | Congress enacted FACA in 1972 to provide a framework for the many boards, councils, and commissions that advise the Executive Branch. See Pub. Citizen v. DOJ , 491 U.S. 440, 445-46 (1989). It found that these bodies are 'a useful and beneficial means of furnishing expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions to the Fede... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
15
] | B. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
55 | Pub. L. No. 115-232, § 1051(a)(1). Its mandate is to 'consider the
methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence . . . to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States.' Id. § 1051(b)(1). And it must report 'to the President and Congress' its ... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
15,
16
] | B. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
56 | The Court likewise found the lack of an exemption significant in concluding that the Commission is subject to FOIA. See NSCAI , 419 F. Supp. 3d at 86-87. The 2019 NDAA excuses the Cyberspace Solarium Commission from FOIA, see Pub. L. No. 115-232, § 1652(m)(2), but does not excuse the AI Commission from FOIA. So too f... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
16
] | B. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
57 | The Government protests that 'no canon of statutory construction provides that the Court should assign weight to [the] absence' of an 'explicit exemption.' Defs.' Reply at 17, ECF No. 33. But here, that is wrong, since Congress elsewhere carved out exemptions. 'Where Congress includes particular language in one sect... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
17
] | B. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
58 | EPIC also points out that Congress passed on a second chance to exempt the Commission See from FACA. Pl.'s Mem. at 19-20. The 2020 NDAA extended the life of the Commission and gave it some new reporting deadlines, but it said nothing about FACA. See Pub. L. No. 116-92, § 1735. And once again, Congress exempted a dif... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
18
] | B. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
59 | Its primary contention is that the Commission, as an 'agency,' cannot also be an 'advisory committee.' Defs.' Mem. at 8. This argument fails because the Government's authorities do not support the categorical principle that all agencies cannot be advisory committees. At most they suggest that a § 551(1) agency canno... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
18,
19
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
60 | Indeed, many statutes list separate definitions that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Pl.'s Reply at 11, ECF No. 35. Take 5 U.S.C. § 552a, which defines 'individual' as 'a citizen of the United States' and separately defines 'Federal personnel' as 'officers and employees of the Government.' 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
19,
20
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
61 | Specifically, Gates cites Soucie 's holding that § 551(1) 'confers agency status on any in Gates was 'advisory only' and 'possesse[d] no 'substantial independent authority.'' Id. reasoning suggests that the concept of 'advisory' in FACA and the concept of 'substantial independent authority' in § 551(1) are mutually exc... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
20,
21
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
62 | After Gates , the next decision to conclude that 'an advisory committee cannot have a 'double identity' as an agency' was Wolfe v. Weinberger , 403 F. Supp. 238, 242 (D.D.C. 1975).
7 Though Washington Research Project noted that 'IRGs are advisory committees,' 504 F.2d at 246, it also stated that '[w]hether the IRG is ... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
21,
22
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
63 | More, Wolfe is also outdated. At the time, the exclusion in § 3(2) was only for groups 'composed wholly of full-time officers or employees.' Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, § 3(2), 86 Stat. 770, 770 (1972). But now, the exclusion is for groups 'composed wholly of full-time, or permanent part-time... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
22,
23
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
64 | does not foreclose the possibility that something Three more recent cases likewise conclude that an advisory committee cannot have a 'double identity' as an agency, but they do not expand on the reasoning from Gates or Wolfe . See Drone Advisory Comm. , 369 F. Supp. 3d at 41; Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Obama , 807 F. Supp.... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
23
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
65 | subject to both FOIA and FACA, it will be incumbent on the parties and the Court to resolve any difficulties in the application of these statutes if that time comes. 8 The Government claims it is a problem that FOIA and FACA 'apply to different documents.' Defs.' Mem. at 15. There are two arguments baked in here. Fi... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
24
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
66 | 8 Indeed, EPIC has potentially smoothed the road already. Its FOIA request sought '[a]ll records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda[s], or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by' the Commission, a direct quotation from section 10(b) of FACA. ... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
24
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
67 | Second, on this subject of records, the Government invokes the so-called 'staff work' exception to FACA. Defs.' Mem. at 15. Under this exception, the Government says, ''staff work' or other documents not directly considered by the committee members are not subject to FACA's open records requirement.' Id. FOIA, by con... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
25
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
68 | Advisory Committee Deliberative Materials , 12 Op. O.L.C. at 77. The Court is unconvinced that a single FOIA exemption prevents Congress from imposing FOIA and FACA on the same body. To begin with, even accepting that FACA's 'purpose' is relevant, Gates and Wolfe are once again distinguishable. Those cases dealt with... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
26
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
69 | The lack of a conflict is particularly apparent here because FACA's disclosure provision incorporates FOIA's exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(b) (' Subject to [5 U.S.C. § 552], the . . . documents which were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee shall be available for public inspection and... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
27
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
70 | The Government makes two final attempts to show a conflict between FOIA and FACA, but they are unavailing. It asserts that FOIA's disclosure obligations-unlike FACA's disclosure obligations-are 'limited in time.' Defs.' Mem. at 16. FOIA requires an agency to produce only records the agency controls at the time of th... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
27,
28
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
71 | For all these reasons, no rule prevented Congress from making the Commission what it is: an 'agency' under § 552(f)(1) but not § 551(1), and an 'advisory committee' under FACA.
10 See U.S. Dep't of Justice, 9-5.000-Issues Related to Discovery Trials, and Other Proceedings , https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
28
] | 1. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
72 | The Government's secondary argument is that the Commission falls within FACA's exclusion for 'any committee that is composed wholly of full-time, or permanent part-time, officers or employees of the Federal Government.' 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 3(2). It asserts that the Commission is 'composed wholly of . . . permanent part... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
29
] | 2. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
73 | '[w]hen a term goes undefined in a statute, we give the term its ordinary meaning.' Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd. , 566 U.S. 560, 566 (2012). The Government offers an 'ordinary understanding' of 'permanent employee,' but it is circular: 'a person filling a permanent employment position.' Defs.' Reply at 15. EP... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
30
] | 2. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
74 | In any event, the regulation's definition of 'permanent' does not help the Government. The specific term that § 531.403 uses is not 'permanent employee' but 'permanent position.' Its definition is 'a position filled by an employee whose appointment is not designated as temporary by law and does not have a definite time... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
31
] | 2. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
75 | A second, independent reason why the Commission does not fall within this exclusion is that its members are not 'part-time' federal employees. Instead, they are 'intermittent' employees. EPIC points to a regulation stating that '[a]n intermittent work schedule is appropriate only when the nature of the work is sporad... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
32
] | 2. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
76 | 11 EPIC claims the Government's Answer conceded that 'the members of the AI Commission are employed on an 'intermittent' basis.' Compl. ¶ 43 (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 340.403); see Pl.'s Mem. at 18. The Government disagrees. Defs.' Reply at 16-17. The Court need not resolve this, as it does not rely on this aspect of EPI... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
32,
33
] | 2. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
77 | Because the Commission is an 'advisory committee' that must comply with FACA's requirements, EPIC's entitlement to mandamus relief is straightforward. The party seeking mandamus has the burden of showing '(1) a clear and indisputable right to relief, (2) that the government agency or official is violating a clear duty... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
33,
34
] | C. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
78 | This, of The Government's only remaining argument against mandamus is that EPIC did not 'adequately plead[]' claims under the mandamus statute. Defs.' Mem. at 18-19. '[I]t is impossible to know,' the Government complains, 'what counts [EPIC] intended to pursue under' this statute 'or the specific allegations that wou... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
34
] | C. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
79 | and constitutes a failure to perform duties owed to EPIC within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1361.' Id. ¶ 115. Count IV likewise asserts that the Commission's 'failure to make [its] records available for inspection and copying is a violation of 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(b) and constitutes a failure to perform a duty owed to ... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
35
] | C. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
80 | EPIC also seeks relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act ('DJA'), 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Compl. ¶ 1; Compl. Requested Relief ¶ H. Under the DJA, the Court 'may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.' 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). This statute 'is not an independent source of... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
35,
36
] | C. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
81 | The mythology of Janus recognizes that backward- and forward-facing personae can coexist. Today, the Court holds that Congress can and did impose Janus-like transparency obligations upon the AI Commission. No rule of law forced Congress to choose just one.
The Court will dismiss Counts II, III, and V, and it will gra... | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on.pdf | [
36
] | IV. | electronic_privacy_information_center_v._national_security_commission_on_chunks.json |
82 | OSVALDO FRIGER SALGUEIRO Apelado V., Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL X = . OSVALDO FRIGER SALGUEIRO Apelado V., Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL X = Apelación procedente del Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Caguas Caso Núm.: CG2018CV031... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
1
] | null | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
83 | En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 31 de mayo de 2024.
El 16 de octubre de 2023, compareció ante este Tribunal de Apelaciones, Mech-Tech College; Mech-Tech Management; LLC, Artificial Intelligence, Corp. d/b/a Artificial Intelligence, Corp; Compañía Aseguradora ABC; Compañía Aseguradora DEF y Compañía Aseguradora ... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
1,
2
] | SENTENCIA | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
84 | Los hechos que suscitaron la controversia de epígrafe se remontan a una Demanda sobre daños y perjuicios y utilización no autorizada de la propia imagen, presentada el 13 de diciembre de 2018, por el señor Osvaldo Friger Salgueiro (en adelante, señor Friger Salgueiro o parte apelada) en contra de Mech-... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
2
] | I | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
85 | su imagen, incluyendo en plataformas como Facebook , Instagram , Youtube y por medio de la televisión. Aseguró haber remitido varias misivas a la parte apelante, mediante las cuales solicitó el cese y desista de la alegada conducta, pero que, a
pesar de ello, la parte apelante continuaba utilizando su im... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
2,
3
] | I | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
86 | Luego de varias incidencias procesales innecesarias pormenorizar, el 28 de julio de 2021, la parte apelante presentó la Moción de Sentencia Sumaria donde reiteró su posición en cuanto a que estaba facultada para utilizar la imagen de la parte apelada y el material videográfico que produjo durante su relación lab... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
3,
4
] | I | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
87 | Posteriormente, la parte apelante presentó la Réplica a Oposición a Moción de Sentencia Sumaria . Sostuvo que, la Ley Núm. 139-2011 no aplicaba en la relación de trabajo entre las partes, puesto que, al momento en que se creó el material videográfico y promocional, esta no estaba en vigor. Acotó que, ... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
4
] | I | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
88 | apelada y su extensión, términos y condiciones, si alguno. De igual manera, determinó que, no contaba con los elementos necesarios para determinar si la parte apelante era dueña de la propiedad intelectual de todos los anuncios, videos y programas creados con la imagen del señor Friger Salgueiro, ya q... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
5
] | I | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
89 | Transcurridos varios trámites procesales innecesarios pormenorizar, los días 13 y 14 de marzo de 2023 se celebró el Juicio en su Fondo y el 15 de septiembre de 2023, el foro de primera instancia emitió la Sentencia cuya revisión nos atiene. En virtud de esta determinó que, todo material utilizado con post... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
5,
6
] | I | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
90 | 1. Erró el TPI al denegar la moción de desestimación por falta de jurisdicción sobre la materia.
2. Erró [el] TPI al concluir que entre las partes no existía un contrato escrito.
3. Erró el TPI al concluir que las demandadas no podían utilizar el material audiovisual a pesar de ser su dueño.
4. Erró el... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
6
] | I | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
91 | En Puerto Rico los derechos de autor están fundamentalmente protegidos por el Federal Copyright Act, 17 USCA sec. 101 et seq ., y por la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual de 1988 y que fuera sustituida por la Ley de Derechos Morales de Autor de 2012 (en adelante, Ley 55-2012). Además, de manera supletoria aplican la... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
6,
7
] | A. Propiedad Intelectual | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
92 | En Puerto Rico, los derechos patrimoniales están principalmente protegidos por la legislación federal que, en cuanto a su ámbito de aplicación, ocupa el campo. 4 Así, la ley gobierna los derechos exclusivos especificados en la sección 106 del estatuto federal, con relación a obras pictóricas, gráficas y escul... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
7
] | A. Propiedad Intelectual | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
93 | reproducirla, preparar obras derivadas, distribuirla, representarla y exponerla públicamente. 6 De igual forma, la ley los confiere inicialmente a su autor, aunque pueden ser transferidos por este -en todo o en parte -por cualquier medio de transmisión o por operación de ley. Asimismo, reconoce bajo c... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
8
] | A. Propiedad Intelectual | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
94 | ' Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
'
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
' (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
' (3) to distribute copies or phonore... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
8
] | A. Propiedad Intelectual | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
95 | Los derechos morales, a su vez, están fundamentalmente protegidos por la legislación estatal. Esta reconoce los derechos de los autores como exclusivos de estos y los protege no solo en beneficio propio, sino también de la sociedad por la contribución social y cultural que históricamente se le ... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
9
] | A. Propiedad Intelectual | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
96 | Los derechos morales se derivan del nexo existente entre el autor y su creación, independientemente del valor puramente monetario que la obra pueda tener. 31 LPRA sec.1401b. Harguindey Ferrer v. U.I ., supra, pág. 28. De esta forma se trata a la obra como una extensión de la personalidad del creador y los... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
9,
10
] | A. Propiedad Intelectual | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
97 | En nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, el derecho a la propia imagen está cimentado en el derecho a la intimidad, de entronque constitucional. Como sabemos, el derecho a la intimidad está expresamente consagrado en la Sección 8 del Artículo II de nuestra Constitución, el cual dispone que ' [t]oda persona t... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
10
] | B. Derecho sobre la propia imagen | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
98 | 10 Art. 1 de Ley de Derechos de Autor de Puerto Rico, Ley Núm. 55-2012, 31 LPRA § 1401j.
11 Véase Vega Rodríguez v. Telefónica de P.R. , 156 DPR 584, 601 (2002); Soc. de Gananciales v. Royal Bank de PR , 145 DPR 308 (1998).
12 López Tristani v. Maldonado Carrero , 168 DPR 838 (2006).
13 Colón v. Romero Barceló , 112 ... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
10,
11
] | B. Derecho sobre la propia imagen | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
99 | Posteriormente, en armonía con el marco constitucional y doctrinario previamente reseñado, el 13 de julio de 2011, nuestra Legislatura aprobó , la Ley del Derecho sobre la Propia Imagen o Ley Núm. 139-2011 16 . Dicho precepto legal estatuye una causa de acción en daños y perjuicios debido al uso... | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc..pdf | [
11,
12
] | B. Derecho sobre la propia imagen | friger_salgueiro_osvaldo_v._mech-tech_college_llc._chunks.json |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 17