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)

Download PDF
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?