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)

Rachel Matteo-Boehm
Direct: 415-268-1996
[e-mail]

November 6, 2012

Bryan Cave LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Tel (415) 268·2000

FILED BYECF

Fax [phone]
www.bryancave.com

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.