Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
Filed (ECF) Appellant Courthouse News Service citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/06/2012.  (REM)
November 6, 2012
Bryan Cave LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Tel (415) 268·2000
Fax (415) 268-1999
Clerk of the Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
95 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Bryan Cave Offices
C0111thollse News Service v. Planet
U.S. Court of Appeals Docket No. 11-57187
Dear Ms. Dwyer:
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).
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).
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
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
November 6, 2012
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,
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?