Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
Filing
34
Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Courthouse News Service. Date of service: 05/29/2012. [8511359] (REM)
U.S. Court of Appeals Docket No. 11-57187
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCIDT
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE,
Plaintiffl Appellant,
vs.
MICHAEL PLANET, in his official capacity as Court Executive Officer/ Clerk of
the Ventura County Superior Court,
Defendant/Appellee.
On Appeal from a Decision of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Case No. CV11-08083 R
The Honorable Manuel Real
EXCERPTS OF RECORD
VOLUME I
Roger Myers, Esq.
Rachel Matteo-Boehm, Esq.
David Greene, Esq.
Leila Knox, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Tel: 415-268-2000
rachel.matteo-boehm @bryancave.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
#79646 vl saf
VOLUME 1
Description
C.D. Cal.
Docket #
Page #
Order Granting Defendant's Motion To Dismiss
And Abstain
38
1
Reporter's Transcript Of Proceedings
44
3
C.D. Cal.
Docket #
Page #
Plaintiff's Notice Of Appeal To The United States
Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
40
13
Excerpts Of Declaration Of Cheryl Kanatzar In
Support Of Defendant's Opposition To Plaintiff s
Motion For Preliminary Injunction
25-2
15
Excerpts Of Plaintiff Courthouse News Service's
Opposition To the Motion To Dismiss And Abstain
Of Defendant Michael Planet
24
19
Excerpts Of Memorandum Of Points And
Authorities In Support Of Defendant's Motion To
Dismiss And Abstain
21
21
21-1
27
22
30
22-1
34
VOLUME 2
Description
Defendant's Notice Of Motion And Motion To
Dismiss And Abstain
Defendant's Request For Judicial Notice In Support
Of Motion To Dismiss And Abstain
Exhibits To Defendant's Request For Judicial
Notice In Support Of Motion To Dismiss And
Abstain
2
#79646 vl saf
Description
C.D. Cal.
Docket #
Page #
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Preliminary
Injunction
3
58
Complaint For Injunctive And Declaratory Relief
1
60
District Court Civil Docket Sheet For Case No.
2:11-cv-08083-R MAN
--
122
3
#79646 vl saf
Care
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 38
Filed 11/30/11
Page 1 of 2 Page 10 #:929
Robert A. Naeve (State Bar No. 106095)
maeve@jonesday.com
EricaL. Reilley (State Bar No. 211615)
elreilley@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 851-3939
Facsimile:
(949) 553-7539
JS-6
Attorneys for Defendant
MICHAEL PLANET, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS COURT EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/CLERK OF THE VENTURA
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
COURTHOUSE
15
Plaintiff,
16
17
18
19
NEWS SERVICE,
Case No. CVI1-08083
R (MANx)
Assigned for all purposes to
Hon. Manuel L. Real
v.
MICHAEL PLANET, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COURT
EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF
THE VENTURA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT,
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT'S
MOTION
DISMISS AND ABSTAIN
TO
20
Defendant.
21
22
III
23
III
24
III
25
III
26
III
27
III
28
III
Order Granting Def's
Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
ER 1
C~e
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 38
Filed 11/30/11
Page 2of2
Page ID #:930
1
A Motion to Dismiss and Abstain ("Motion") filed by Defendant Michael D.
2
Planet, in his official capacity as Executive Officer and Clerk of the Superior Court
3
of California, County of Ventura, came on for hearing on November 28, 2011, at
4
10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Manuel L. Real. Rachel Matteo-Boehm and
5
David Greene appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Courthouse News Service: Robert A.
6
Naeve and Erica L. Reilley appeared on behalf of Defendant Michael D. Planet.
7
Having considered all the papers submitted, oral argument, and the Court's
8
file in this matter, and good cause having been shown, the Court hereby ORDERS
9
as follows:
10
(1)
Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
11
(2)
The Court dismisses Plaintiffs Third Claim for Relief for violation of
12
California Rule of Court 2.550 because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to
13
the United States Constitution;
14
(3)
The Court abstains and dismisses the remainder of Plaintiffs
15
Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief under the equitable abstention
16
doctrine enunciated in O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974), and its progeny;
17
and
18
(4)
The Court further abstains and dismisses the remainder of Plaintiffs
19
Complaint under the abstention doctrine enunciated in Railroad Commission of
20
Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: November 30,2011
Hon. Manuel L. Real
U.S. District Court Judge
24
25
26
27
28
- 1-
Order Granting Def's
Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
ER2
~se
2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 44
Filed 01/04/12
Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:946
1
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL, JUDGE PRESIDING
5
6
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE,
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
vs.
No. CV 11-8083-R
MICHAEL PLANET, etc., et. a1.,
10
MOTION FOR
PRELIM INJUNCTION
Defendants.
11
12
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
13
Los Angeles, California
14
Monday, November 28, 2011
15
10:59 A.M.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Monday, November
THERESA A. LANZA, RPR, CSR
Federal Official Court Reporter
3470 12th Street, Rm. 134
Riverside, California
92501
(951) 274-0844
WWW.THERESALANZA.COM
28, 2011
COURTHOUSE NEWS vs. PLANET
ER3
4
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 44
Filed 01/04/12
Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:947
2
1
2
APPEARANCES:
3
4
On Behalf of Plaintiff:
5
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
BY: Rachel Matteo-Boehm
BY: David Green
560 Mission Street
25th Floor
San Francisco, California
415-268-1996
6
7
8
94105-2994
9
10
On Behalf of Defendants:
11
JONES DAY
BY: Erica L. Reilley
BY: Robert A. Naeve
555 South Flower Street
Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, California
213-489-3939
12
13
14
90071
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Monday, November
28, 2011
COURTHOUSE
NEWS vs. PLANET
ER4
C~se 2: 11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 44
Filed 01/04/12
Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:948
3
1
I N D E X
2
3
Page
MOTION... .......
........
....
.....
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Monday, November
28, 2011
COURTHOUSE NEWS vs. PLANET
ER5
&se 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 44
Filed 01/04/12
Page 4 of 10 Page 10 #:949
4
1
Los Angeles, California; Monday, November 28, 2011; 10:59 A.M.
2
-000-
THE CLERK:
3
4
Courthouse News Service vs. Michael Planet, et cetera, et al.
MS. MATTEO-BOEHM:
5
6
Calling calendar item ten, CV-11-8083,
Rachel Matteo-Boehm appearing on
10:59
behalf of plaintiff Courthouse News Service.
7
MR. GREEN:
David Green for Courthouse News Service.
8
MR. NAEVE:
Robert Naeve and Erica Reilley on behalf
9
of the defendants.
THE COURT:
10
11
Counsel, anything to add to the documents
10:59
which have been filed?
MS. MATTEO-BOEHM:
12
Your Honor, just a very brief
13
point in response to the reply filed in support of defendant's
14
motion to dismiss.
15
Defendant complains that Courthouse News Service is
16
seeking special access.
17
simply an end to the delays in access to newly filed complaints
18
caused by the defendant's policy of not permitting access until
19
after he's completed all of those administrative tasks
20
associated with those documents.
21
That's not correct.
11 :00
We're seeking
11 :00
But it's worth pointing out that in the Richmond
22
Newspapers
23
the context of courtroom proceedings, there's limited seating;
24
it's appropriate to give some of that seating to the press.
25
For the same reason, as many courts currently do, it's
Monday, November
case, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, Look, in
28, 2011
11: 00
COURTHOUSE NEWS vs. PLANET
ER6
C~se 2: 11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 44
Filed 01/04/12
Page 5 of 10 Page 10 #:950
5
1
appropriate to set special procedures for members of the press
2
who visit the court every day for the expressed purpose of
3
reviewing newly filed complaints.
4
alternatives to restricting access that should be considered in
5
the third part of the First Amendment test.
Indeed, this is one of the
11: 01
6
THE COURT:
All right.
7
MR. NAEVE:
Our only point was that the
8
First Amendment doesn't grant special access and that the
9
access offered to the public has been offered to CNS.
10
But
other than that, we stand on our papers, Your Honor.
11
THE COURT:
11:01
Both plaintiff and defendant agree that
12
the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff's third cause of action.
13
As such, plaintiff's
14
third cause of action is dismissed.
As for plaintiff's first and second causes of action,
15
the Court concludes that abstention is appropriate under both
16
the O'Shea doctrine and the Pullman doctrine.
17
doctrine, first articulated in O'Shea vs. Littleton, 414 U.S.
18
488, 1974, counsels federal courts to decline to exercise their
19
equitable powers in cases seeking to reform state institutions.
20
Horne vs. Flores, 129 S.Ct. 2579, 2009.
21
are heightened when a federal decree has the effect of
22
dictating state and local budget priorities."
23
11: 01
The abstention
"Federalism concerns
11: 02
In E.T. v. Cantil-Sakauye, 657 F.3d 902, Ninth
24
Circuit 2011, the Ninth Circuit recently noted that O'Shea's
25
equitable restrain considerations are nearly absolute when the
Monday,
November 28, 2011
COURTHOUSE
11 :02
NEWS vs. PLANET
ER 7
C§se 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 44
Filed 01/04/12
Page 6 of 10 Page 10 #:951
6
1
state agency in question is a state court.
2
CNS seeks for would interfere with the administration of the
3
Ventura Superior Court's operations.
4
Office would be required to make all new complaints available
5
the same day they were filed.
6
judicial proceedings to evaluate the constitutionality
7
delay.
8
9
Here, the relief
The Ventura Clerk's
Failure to do so would require
11:02
of each
This would be a potentially significant disruption of
the court's operations, and could possibly lead to a
10
significant reallocation of court services.
11
hesitates to dictate state and local budget priorities.
12
and local governments have limited funds.
13
orders that money be appropriated
14
is often to take funds away from other important programs.
15
decision about how to allocate resources is better left to the
16
elected representa tives .
17
This Court
11: 03
State
When a federal court
for one program, the effect
The
11:03
Under the Pullman doctrine, first articulated in
18
Railroad Commission of Texas vs. Pullman Company, 312 U.S. 496,
19
1941, "federal courts should abstain from decision when
20
difficult and unsettled questions of state law must be resolved
21
before a substantial federal constitutional question can be
22
decided."
23
1984.
24
25
Hawaii Housing Authority vs. Midkiff,
11:03
467 U.S. 229,
In the Ninth Circuit, federal courts have the
discretion to abstain under Pullman when:
Monday, November
28, 2011
(1) the complaint
COURTHOUSE
11 :04
NEWS vs. PLANET
ERa
~se
2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document44
Filed 01/04/12
Page 7 of 10 Page 10 #:952
7
1
touches a sensitive area of social policy upon which federal
2
courts ought not enter unless no alternative is available;
3
a determination of the state ground is capable of resolving the
4
controversy; and, (3) the proper resolution of the state ground
5
for the decision is uncertain.
6
447 F.3d 673, Ninth Circuit 2006.
7
(2)
Smelt vs. County of Orange,
Here, all three factors are present.
11 :04
First, the
8
complaint touches a sensitive area of social policy.
9
CNS is
asking the Court to direct and oversee administrative
10
operations of the Ventura Superior Court, a potentially
11
sensitive area of state sovereignty.
12
prongs are also present.
13
already provides that court records of all types shall be made
14
reasonably accessible to all members of the public.
15
the term "reasonable access" has not yet been defined by either
16
the state courts or the California legislature.
17
access were defined to mean "same-day access," this would avoid
18
the necessity of this Court deciding the federal constitutional
19
issues, a determination that may be premature at this time.
20
Thus, defendant's motion to abstain is granted.
21
22
11:04
The second and third
Cal. Government Code
§
68150(1)
However,
11:05
If reasonable
11: 05
Under those certain circumstances, the preliminary
injunction is therefore denied.
23
Counsel to prepare the order.
24
MR. NAEVE:
25
Thank you, Your Honor.
(Proceedings concluded.)
Monday, November
28, 2011
COURTHOUSE
NEWS vs. PLANET
ERg
c~Qe2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 44
Filed 01/04/12
Page 8 of 10 Page 10 #:953
8
1
2
3
CERTIFICATE
4
5
6
7
I hereby certify that pursuant to section 753, title 28, United
states Code, the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of
the stenographically reported proceedings held in the aboveentitled matter and that the transcript page format is in
conformance with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of
the United States.
8
9
10
/S/ Theresa A. Lanza
CSR, RPR
Federal Official Court Reporter
Date
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Monday, November
28, 2011
COURTHOUSE NEWS vs. PLANET
ER10
cJs"b 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
-MAN Document 44
6:2
Clerk's
administrative
[2J-
4:19; 7:9
Filed 01/04/12
[lJ - 6:3
delaYS[l[ - 4:17
- 6:1
Code[II-7:12
10:59 [lJ - 4:1
agree [I] - 5: 11
Commission
12911J - 5:20
al[ll-
allocate
4:4
1974 [1J- 5:18
alternative
1984[lJ - 6:23
alternat[ves
tu - 5:4
Amendment
[31-
2
5:5,8,12
2[lJ -7:2
[II - 4:5
appropriate
4:1; 5:24
[1J-
257911J - 5:20
articulated
28 I1J- 4:1
(2)- 5:17;
6:17
3
11]- 4:20
Authority
I1J- 6:22
available
[2J- 6:4;
7:2
311J-7:4
direct [lJ - 7: 9
discretion
7:8
[31-
dismissed
[IJ - 4:19
ltl - 5:20
III - 7:25
concludes
I1J- 5:15
behalf 12]- 4:6, 8
better I1J- 6: 15
488 I1J- 5:18
BOEHM [21- 4:5, 12
496 [1J- 6:18
Boehm
I1J- 4:5
briefllJ
- 4:12
budget
(21- 5:22;
6
considered
constitutionality
I1J
111-7:4
12i- 4:10;
657 I1J- 5:23
Court 16J 4:22;
5:15; 6:10; 7:9,18
court 15J 5:2; 6: 1,
10,12;
courts
68150(111J-7:12
16J 4:25;
-
Californial2J
- 4:1;
cantil
casellJ
A.Mll)-4:1
absolute
11J 5:25
-
I1J-
(1J- 7:3
[IJ - 5:14
[I) - 7:21
certain
access
4:16-18;
decline
5:4,8-9;
7:15, 17
accesslble(1)action
Circuit
7:14
13J 5:12
-
administration
(1)-
[I) - 5:18
exercise
L
I1J- 5: 18
[IJ - 5:2
law I1J- 6:20
lead I1J- 6:9
leftllJ - 6:15
F
legislature
11J 7:16
-
limited
4:23;
[2] -
6:12
factors I1J- 7:7
Littleton
failure I1J- 6:5
local13J - 5:22; 6: 11
federal IS]- 5:18, 21;
6:12,19,21,24;
7:1,
[IJ -
Look III - 4:22
Los I1J- 4:1
I1J- 5:20
M
Firstl2J - 5:5, 8
MATIEOI2J-4:5,12
MaUeo I1J- 4:5
MATIEO-BOEHM
6:17; 7:7
(2]-4:5,12
MaUeo-Boehm
funds(2)-6:12,14
13J
-
7:20
mean [1J- 7:17
G
[II - 4:9
delay [11- 6:7
Case Name/number
12J 5: 1;
-
7:14
governmentllJ
-
7:12
[2J- 7:15, 17
I1J-
4:5
members
defendants
defined
I1J- 5:17
firstI4J-5:14,17;
[2J- 4:15;
defendant's
4:13,18;
CLERK II) - 4:3
et[2J - 4:4
evaluate II] - 6:6
Flores [IJ - 5:20
defendant
6:24; 7:6
7:21
add [IJ - 4:10
Judicial [IJ - 6:6
Erica IIi - 4:8
5:11
[4J- 5:24;
circumstances
25
decree I1J- 5:21
cetera I1J- 4:4
(9) -
13J 6:15,
-
19; 7:5
[IJ - 4:18
[2)- 5: 15
111-7:18
decision
cases II) - 5:19
abstention
I1J- 6:22
deciding
- 4:22
causes
25; 7:20
[2]- 5: 19,
17; 5:3; 6:5
David I1J- 4:7
decided
caused
abstalnjat -6:19,
J
enterrlJ - 7:2
filed 15J 4:11, 13,
-
5:23
capable
item III - 4:3
end 11J 4:17
-
federalism
I1J- 5:23
Cantil-Sakauye
A
[1J- 6:2
issues I1J- 7:19
18
0
7:16
902 I1J- 5:23
(1)- 4:23
CV-11-808311J - 4:3
- 4:3
Eleventh I1J- 5:12
14J 4:4,
-
5:18; 6:19, 24; 7:2, 16
Cal I1J- 7:12
calendaf[l]
elected II] - 6: 16
[1)-
5:19
Interfere
F.3d [2J- 5:23; 7:6
courtroom
(1)- 7:22
Institutions
-7:15
[1]- 6:3
6-7,15
I1J- 6: 14
indeed [I] - 5:3
I1J- 6:9
Court's
[IJ - 6:22
I
effect (2)- 5:21; 6:13
expressed
7:13
court's
C
9
I1J- 5: 18
5:20
Housing
injunction
equitable
[1J- 7:5
Hornetn-
Important
eitherllJ
4:23
[1)- 5:21
[1J- 6: 11
[2] -
E.T (1)- 5:23
Courthouse
67311J - 7:6
documents
(2)-
- 6:6
hesitates
4:10,20
II) - 5:4
6:21; 7:18
County
6:11
(41- 5: 16;
E
counsels
467 I1J- 6:22
doctrine
Hawaii [lJ - 6:22
heightened
6:17
I1J-
7:23
447111 -7:6
[1)- 6:8
5:25
correctnj- 4:16
bars n] - 5:12
[II - 5: 13
disruption
completed
counsel
41411]- 5:17
(1)- 6:25
dismiss 111 4:14
-
controversy
B
4
H
[IJ - 5:22
[11- 4: 15
context[ll-
avold[1J - 7:17
312 (1)- 6:18
[21- 7:3
[I) - 6 :20
[21- 6:25;
constitutional
associated
difficult
complaint
considerations
area 13J 7:1, 8, 11
-
ground
complains
concluded
appropriated
6:13
229 I1J- 6:22
- 6:18
[1]- 7:20
m - 6:11
dictating
CompanYllJ
concerns
[3] -
4:24; 5:1,15
2009 [IJ - 5:20
dictate
4:17; 5:3; 6:4
[II - 4:1
appearing
2006(1)-7:6
[lJ -
complaints
Angeles
201112]-
[11- 7:2
Green [I] - 4:7
[2]-
7:3,19
6:18
11J 6:15
-
GREEN [1J- 4:7
detennlnation
7:8
agencY[lJ
granted
denied [I] - 7:22
CNS [3J- 5:9; 6:2;
1 [1J- 6:25
1941 [IJ - 6:19
Page 9 of 10 Page 10 #:954
1
Michael
11i- 4:4
Midklffll1
governments
6:12
II) -
- 6:22
Monday
11)- 4:1
money [1J- 6: 13
grant I1J- 5:8
date
ER 11
'\?ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 44
Filed 01/04/12
Page 10 of 10 Page 10
2
#:955
motion
[2J- 4:14;
7:20
pOWerS[lJ - 5:19
preliminary
MR (4)- 4:7; 5:7;
7:24
6:17,25;
5
[1] -
7:21
unless (1)- 7:2
7:21
unsettled
premature[l)-
7:19
[1]- 6:20
S.Ct (1)- 5:20
MS[2)-4:5,12
prepare
(1)- 7:23
Sakauye (1)- 5:23
must (1)- 6:20
present
[2]- 7:7, 12
same-daY[l)
press [2]- 4:24; 5:1
seatIng (2) - 4:23
priorities
N
second[2J-5:14;
5:22;
(2) -
7:24
Naeve(1]-
4:8
5:25
necessity
[1] -
neW[l]-
7: 18
4:17; 5:3
News [41- 4:4, 6-7,
15
[1]-
4:22
Ninth (4) - 5:23; 6:24;
7:6
seeking
4:16;
(3)-
(2) -
sensitive
program
(1)- 6:13
programs
(1)- 6:14
prongs
proper
[1]- 7:4
provIdes
publlc[2J-5:9;
Pullman
7:14
14)- 5:16;
15
worth [1]- 4:21
5:1
§
shan [11- 7:13
s[gnlflcant
[2J- 6:8,
10
§(1) - 7:12
slmpIY[l)
6:17,25
5:17, 20;
7:5
W
set[l]-
(1)- 7: 13
6:18,22;
Serv[ce [4J- 4:4, 6-7,
servIces [1] - 6: 10
[lJ - 7:12
visit (1)- 5:2
(3)- 7: 1, 8,
11
4:23; 6:6
[3J- 6:3;
vs[6]-4:4;
5:19
seeks (1)- 6:2
purpose
noted (1) - 5:24
November
(1) -
proceedings
6:4
Newspapers
(1)- 5:1
7:25
nearIY[l]-
new[Y(2)-
procedures
Proceedings
Ventura
7:10
7:11
6:11
NAEVE (3)- 4:8; 5:7;
V
- 7:17
- 4:17
Smelt [11- 7:5
[11- 5:2
social [2] - 7:1,8
[1]- 4:1
sovereignty
Q
[1] -
7:11
0
special [31- 4:16;
questions
O'Shea
[2] -
O'Shea's
offered
(1)- 6:4
16
Rachel (1)- 4:5
Railroad
one (2)- 5:3; 6:13
000[1)-4:2
[11- 6:18
reallocation
[1] -
6:3,
(3) -
reason
orders
records
[11- 7:9
p
[1]- 4:13
Supreme (1)- 4:22
T
[1) - 4:22
(1)- 7: 13
reformjuReilley
7: 15
[1] - 5:24
recognized
(1)- 7:2
- 6:3;
[11- 7:14
recently
[1] - 6: 13
oversee
[2J -
reasonably
(1)- 7:5
[1]- 6:21
Super[or(2)
support
(1)- 4:25
reasonable
order [1] - 7:23
substantial
7:10
6:10
9; 7:10
Orange
- 5:10
stale [111- 5:19, 22;
6:1,11,20;7:3,11,
often (1)- 6:14
ought
R
5:9
operations
5:1,6
standnj
5: 16
(1)- 5:24
[2] -
Office
[1) - 6:20
tasks [1]- 4:19
5:19
tenjn-
m - 4:8
4:3
term 11]- 7:15
papers
relief [1) - 6:1
11)- 4:16
(2)- 4:6;
(3) -
PlanetllJ
-4:4
5: 12
point [2) - 4:13; 5:7
pointing
[lJ - 4:21
pollcYI3J-4:18;
7:1,
8
possibly
(1)- 6:9
potentiaIlY(2)7:10
requlre[l]required
6:8;
5:5
therefore
11)- 7:22
third [4) - 5:5, 12-13;
6:5
7:11
[1) - 6:4
resolution
5:11
plaintiffs
(1)-
6:16
part [1] - 5:5
plaintiff
Texas [1]- 6:18
- 4:13
representatives
rn - 5:10
permitting
test[l]-
replY[lJ
11)- 7:4
resolved
11J 6:20
-
resolving
Ihree 11J 7:7
touches
12]- 7: 1, 8
[1] - 7:3
resources
response
restrain
7:13
U
(1)- 6: 15
(1)- 4:13
11)- 5:25
restricting
[1) -
reviewing
5:4
[lJ - 5:3
Richmond[l]Rebertnj-
types[ll-
4:21
4:8
U.S[4]- 4:22; 5:17;
6:16,22
uncertain
[1) - 7:5
Under[4)-
5:15;
Case Name/number
date
ER12
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?