Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 31

Filed (ECF) Appellant Courthouse News Service citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/06/2012. [8389450] (REM)

Download PDF
Rachel Matteo-Boehm Direct: 415-268-1996 November 6, 2012 Bryan Cave LLP 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2994 Tel (415) 268·2000 FILED BYECF Fax (415) 268-1999 Molly Dwyer Clerk of the Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Bryan Cave Offices Atlanta Boulder Charlotte Chicago Re: C0111thollse News Service v. Planet U.S. Court of Appeals Docket No. 11-57187 Colorado Springs Dallas Denver Dear Ms. Dwyer: Frankfurt Hamburg We represent Appellant Courthouse News Service in the above-referenced case, and write in response to Appellee Michael Planet's October 31 notice of additional authority pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 280). Hong Kong Irvine Jefferson City Kansas City London As a preliminaty matter, Appellee's Rule 280) Notice, which contains more than 600 words, exceeds the word limitation in Rule 280) and thus should not be considered. Halt 1l. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059, 1071 n.ll (9th Cir. 2006). Los Angeles New York Paris Phoenix In any event, Assembly Bill 2073, including the provisions Appellee highlights, was pending before the Legislature at the time Appellee filed his answering brief. Since any points Appellee wished to make regarding AB 2073 could have been raised in that brief, the Rule 280) Notice verges on being new argument as opposed to new authority. San Francisco Shanghai Singapore St. Louis Washington, DC Bryan Cave International Consulting It also is not pertinent. The amendments AB 2073 makes to subdivision (d) of Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6 relate to e-filing, not access, and the language pertaining to access to electronically filed records in new subdivision (f) replaces nearly identical language in the current, pre-amendment version of subdivision (d). Thus, AB 2073 does not show California is grappling with access to court records. Moreover, contrary to Appellee's assertion in his Rule 280) Notice that e-filing "should improve overall accessibility to court records," Courthouse News has found the opposite is often ttue, and access to e-filed complaints often takes longer than access to paper filings, a point it made in the declarations filed in support of its A TRADE AND CUSTOMS CONSULTANCY www.bryancaveconsulling.colll Bangkok Beijing Jakarta Kuala Lumpur Manila Shanghai Singapore Tokyo Molly Dwyer November 6, 2012 Page 2 Bryan Cave LlP motion for preliminaq injunction in the trial court. See FER 10-13. And, as Courthouse News explained in its appellate briefs, the extent to which e-filing or the lack thereof at the Ventura County Superior Court has a bearing on the question of whether the delays in access to new complaints at Ventura Superior are permissible under the First Amendment is properly a matter for the merits of this case, which the district court did not reach because it abstained from addressing the merits of the First Amendment issue. See, e.g., AOB 10,49; Appellant's Reply Brief, 3-5, 6-7. Very tnl1y yours, cc: Robert Naeve, Esq.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?