American Civil Liberties Union, et al v. John Kroger, et al

Filing 18

Filed (ECF) Appellants American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Cascade AIDS Project, Candace Morgan and Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. reply to response (Motion for Reconsideration (ECF Filing) , Response to Motion (ECF Filing) ). Date of service: 06/10/2009. [6952527] (Runkles-Pearson, Patricia) [Entered: 06/10/2009 04:00 PM]

American Civil Liberties Union, et al v. John Kroger, et al

Doc. 18

Nos. 09-35153, 09-35154 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT POWELL'S BOOKS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOHN KROGER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF OREGON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOHN KROGER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Hon. Michael W. Mosman Case No. CV-08-501-MO

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER ON THEIR MOTION TO FILE A SINGLE EXCERPTS OF RECORD AND FOR COMBINED ORAL ARGUMENT

Portlnd3-1671228.1 0099880-00578

Dockets.Justia.com

P.K. Runkles-Pearson, OSB No. 061911 [e-mail] STOEL RIVES LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Cooperating Attorney ACLU Foundation of Oregon Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants ACLU of Oregon, et al. Michael A. Bamberger [e-mail] Richard M. Zuckerman [e-mail] SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas 24th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants Powell's Books, Inc., et al.

Denise Fjordbeck, OSB No. 822578 [e-mail] Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorney for Defendants-Appellees John Kroger, et al.

2
Nos. 09-35153, 09-35154 PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER ON THEIR MOTION TO FILE A SINGLE EXCERPTS OF RECORD AND FOR COMBINED ORAL ARGUMENT
Portlnd3-1671228.1 0099880-00578

In reply to Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for reconsideration, counsel for Defendants-Appellees suggests that "appellants should attempt to combine their briefing to the greatest extent practicable and to avoid duplicative briefing." (Defendants-Appellees' Response, p. 2). Plaintiffs-Appellants agree. Plaintiffs-Appellants do not intend to burden the Court with duplicative briefing. The entire reason for filing separate briefs (both of which were within 48 hours of being filed when the June 3 Order was entered) is that PlaintiffsAppellants Powell's Books et al. (which include literary associations and booksellers) and Plaintiffs-Appellants ACLU et al. (which include providers of health care information) are affected differently by the statutes at issue, and will make different, non-duplicative substantive arguments. To the extent that they may have arguments in common, the two groups of Plaintiffs-Appellants will coordinate their briefing, so that the same argument is presented to the Court only once, not twice. Plaintiffs-Appellants made their motion seeking leave to file a single Excepts of Record and to have the cases scheduled together for oral argument but not consolidated, for the very purpose identified by Defendants-Appellees: To avoid duplication that would burden the Court. Plaintiffs-appellants respectfully
1
Nos. 09-35153, 09-35154 PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER ON THEIR MOTION TO FILE A SINGLE EXCERPTS OF RECORD AND FOR COMBINED ORAL ARGUMENT
Portlnd3-1671228.1 0099880-00578

suggest that the best way to attain that goal is to have a single Excerpts of Record, separate briefs filed by the Plaintiffs-Appellants on the separate appeals, and oral argument on the two appeals heard by the same panel on the same day. Of course, Plaintiffs-Appellants have no objection if Defendants-Appellees wish to file a single brief in response to the separate briefs filed by PlaintiffsAppellants Powell's Books et al. and Plaintiffs-Appellants ACLU et al. Dated June 10, 2009. STOEL RIVES LLP s/ P. K. Runkles-Pearson P. K. Runkles-Pearson, OSB No. 061911 Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants ACLU of Oregon, et al. in 09-35154 SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP s/ Michael A. Bamberger (with permission) Michael A. Bamberger Richard M. Zuckerman [e-mail] Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants Powell's Books, Inc., et al. in 09-35153

2
Nos. 09-35153, 09-35154 PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER ON THEIR MOTION TO FILE A SINGLE EXCERPTS OF RECORD AND FOR COMBINED ORAL ARGUMENT
Portlnd3-1671228.1 0099880-00578

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE United States Court of Appeals Docket Number: No. 09-35153, 09-35154 I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing PLAINTIFFSAPPELLANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER ON THEIR MOTION TO FILE A SINGLE EXCERPT OF RECORD AND FOR COMBINED ORAL ARGUMENT with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on June 10, 2009. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. Dated June 10, 2009.

STOEL RIVES LLP s/ P.K. Runkles-Pearson P.K. Runkles-Pearson

Portlnd3-1671228.1 0099880-00578