Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
Filing
35
Submitted (ECF) further excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Courthouse News Service. Date of service: 09/12/2012. [8511367] (REM)
U.S. Court of Appeals Docket No. 11-57187
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE,
Plaintiff/.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
APPELLANT COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE'S
FURTHER EXCERPTS OF RECORD
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
#81391 vl saf
Description
C.D. Cal.
Docket #
Page #
Supplemental Declaration Of Julianna Krolak In
Support Of Plaintiff s Motion For Preliminary
Injunction
29
1
Supplemental Declaration Of William Girdner in
Support Of Plaintiff s Motion For Preliminary
Injunction
28
6
Defendant's Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For
Preliminary Injunction
25
15
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In
Support Of Defendant's Motion To Dismiss And
Abstain
21
45
Declaration Of Christopher Marshall In Support Of
Plaintiff s Motion For Preliminary Injunction
8
77
Declaration Of William Girdner In Support Of
Plaintiff s Motion For Preliminary Injunction
7
129
Declaration Of Julianna Krolak In Support Of
Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction
6
287
1
1181391 vl saf
se 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTR1CT OF CALIFORNIA~
WESTERN DIVISION
12
13
Courthouse
CASE NO. eVI1-08083 R (MANx)
News Service,
15
Plaintiff,
16
v.
17
18
19
Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:695
Rachel Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
rachel.matteo-boehm@hro.com
David Greene (SBN 160107)
david.greene@hro.com
Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
leila.knox@hro.com
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone:
(415) 268-2000
Facsimile: (415) 268-1999
11
.14
Filed 11/07/11
Michael Planet, in his official capacity as
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court.
20
Defendant.
21
22
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
OF JULIANNA KROLAK IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION OF
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
FOR PRELIMINARY
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge: The
INJUNCTION
Nov. 21,2011
10:00 am
0-8 (2nd Floor)
Hon. Manuel L. Real
23
24
25
26
27
I, Julianna Krolak, declare and state as follows:
1.
I am a reporter for Courthouse News Service ("Courthouse
plaintiff in the above-captioned
action. I have personal knowledge
News"), the
of the following
facts and could testify to them if called as a witness.
28
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
OF JULIANNA KROLAK
Case No. CV1I-08083R
(MANx)
#75442 v2 saf
FER1
se 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
2.
-MAN
Document 29
Filed 11/07/11
Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:696
I have reviewed the October 31,2011, Declaration of Julie Camacho In
2
Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
3
Based on that review, it is my understanding that Ms. Camacho has reached different
4
conclusions regarding the delay between the date that a complaint is filed and the date
5
that it is made available for review than were set forth in my September 28,2011,
6
Declaration In Support of Courthouse News Service's Motion for Preliminary
7
Injunction.
8
9
3.
After reviewing Ms. Camacho's October 31 declaration, I stand by the
delays in access I observed as part of my August 8 through September 2, 2011,
10
tracking exercise and as set forth in my September 28 declaration. Based on my
11
personal experience visiting the Ventura County Superior Court ("Ventura Superior")
12
on a daily basis, and my practice of requesting complaints from media bin on a daily
13
basis, I can say definitively that Ms. Camacho's assertion that the vast majority of
14
civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints are available for review through the media bin
15
either on the day of filing or the next day is not accurate.
16
4.
As a preliminary matter, for the purposes of the tracking exercise
17
described in my September 28 declaration, I tracked the 152 complaints that I was
18
able to access and review during the August 8~September 2 time period (the "Tracking
19
Period"). In contrast, Ms. Camacho's assessment appears to be based on the 147
20
complaints that were filed during that period.
21
5.
During the Tracking Period, as to each civil unlimited jurisdiction
22
complaint that I reviewed, I took note of the first date that each complaint was
23
available from the media bin, or, if the complaint was never given to me from the
24
media bin, the first date that I could access a complaint that had apparently bypassed
25
the media bin and had been placed the shelves of the clerk's office. I based my
26
conclusions on what I actually experienced during my daily visits to Ventura Superior,
27
including my personal observations as to which complaints were retrieved by the
28
clerk's staff and then given to me from the media bin.
2
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARA nON OF JULIANN A KROLAK
Case No. CYII-08083R
(MANx)
#75442 v2 ... f
FER2
se 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
6.
-MAN Document 29
Filed 11/07111
Page 3 of 5 Page 10 #:697
In paragraphs 11-12 of Ms. Camacho's declaration, she indicates that the
2
complaint in City National Bank v. Star Marketing & Media Inc., Case No. 56-2011-
3
00401805, was available for review from the media bin on the same day it was filed,
4
and the complaint in Power Gomez v. LaCouture,
5
available for review from the media bin one calendar day after it was filed. Contrary
6
to what Ms. Camacho's records purport to show, those two complaints were not made
7
available for my review from the media bin or otherwise until two calendar days after
8
they were filed.
9
7.
Case No. 56-20 11-0040 1826~ was
Likewise, paragraph 22 of Ms. Camacho's declaration states that the
10
complaints in Estrada v. Rubio's Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 56-2010-00387332, and
II
Harrison
12
on the same day they were filed; and the complaint in Berber v. Holiday Retirement,
13
56-2010-00387945, was available from the media bin seven calendar days after it was
14
filed. Contrary to what Ms. Camacho's records purport to show, the complaint in the
15
Estrada case was not made available for review from the media bin or otherwise until
16
thirteen calendar days after it was filed; the complaint in the Harrison case was not
17
made available for review from the media bin or otherwise until nine calendar days
18
after it was filed; and the complaint in the Berber case was not made available for
19
review from the media bin or otherwise until eight calendar days after it was filed.
20
v. Rite Aid Corp., Case No. 56-2010-00387942, were sent to the media bin
8.
When a civil unlimited jurisdiction complaint is not available for review,
21
but there is docket information available online regarding a particular complaint
22
(usually available one calendar day after the complaint is filed), it is my practice to
23
include the parties' names and the cause of action based on the online docket
24
information in the new litigation report that is sent to Courthouse News' subscribers.
25
Because new civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints typically are not available for
26
review until several days after they are filed, new reports usually contain several
27
entries that are reported "from the docket"; I will then provide a full description of the
28
complaint at a later date when I am finally able to access the complaint itself.
3
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
OF JULIANNA
KROLAK
Case No. CVll-08083R (MANx)
~7S4ol2 v2 saf
FER3
se 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN
I
9.
Document 29
Filed 11/07/11
Page 4 of 5
Page 10 #:698
On nwnerous occasions, subscribers have asked for more information
2
related to a particular complaint reported "from the docket." When this happens, I
3
will ask the clerk's staff to track down those complaints, which they have informed
4
me they do by looking up each complaint on the court's online case management
5
system, which I understand is part of the California Court Case Management System
6
("CCMS'}
7
clerk's staffhas told me that the system indicates that the complaint is in the media
8
bin. When I inform the clerk's staff that the complaint was not provided to me from
9
the media bin, they often will check the bin in an effort to locate the complaint. In all
On several occasions, upon looking up the complaint on CCMS, the
10
of these instances, the clerk's staff has never been able to fmd the complaints in the
11
media bin.
12
10.
Likewise, on several occasions, the clerk's staff has told me that the
13
computer system indicates that a particular complaint is located on the clerk's shelves,
14
but upon looking for the complaint on the shelves, the file is not there. For example,
15
on November 2,2011, I requested to see the complaint in Simon v. Lopez, Case No.
16
56-2011-00406107, filed November 1,201 L Upon looking up this complaint on
17
CCMS, the processing clerk who was assisting me, an individual named Joseph, said
18
that the system indicated that the complaint was on the clerk's shelves. However,
19
after looking for the complaint on the shelves, Joseph told me he could not find the
20
complaint there. I also observed that Joseph and another processing clerk also
21
checked the media bin for the complaint, but were not able to locate the complaint
22
there. In the end, I was not able to review this particular complaint until November 3,
23
201 L
24
11.
Since May of this year, I have observed that Ventura Superior has trained
25
at least three new processing clerks. From what I have been told by clerk's staff, the
26
civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints that are processed by new clerks typically must
27
be double-checked by a supervisor before they can be made available to members of
28
the press and public. In these situations, it can be as long as one week before a civil
4
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
OF JULlANNA
KROLAK
Case No. CVII-08083R
(MANx)
1175442 ~ saf
FER4
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 29
Flied 11/07/11
Page 5 of 5
Page 10 #:699
1
unlimited jurisdiction complaint is made available for review. In fact, on several
2
occasions, I was told that the complaints that 1 sought to review were on the desk of a
3
supervisor who was gone for several days, and therefore I could not review those
4
particular complaints until after she returned.
5
12.
Finally, based on personal observation and statements by court staff, I
6
can say that all new complaints come into the court through a single room called the
7
"filings room," which is room number 210. The clerks who take in new civil
8
complaints filed across the counter, as well as the back counter and window 14 used
9
by messenger services, are all located in that one room. The drop-off box for
10
complaints is located immediately outside the door into the same filings
11
roOID.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
12
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Ventura, California on this ~day
13
of
November 2011.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. CV11.{)8083R (MANx)
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JULIANNA KROLAK
iI15441v2
oaf
- -_ .. -..---------.--------
._-
---_
_------- _ ... -.. -_ .... _------
..
~~--.---
FER5
se 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 28
Filed 11/07/11
Page 1 of 9 Page 10 #:686
1 Rachel Matteo-Boehm (SEN 195492)
2 rachel.matteo-boehm@hro.com
David Greene (SBN 160107)
3 david.greene@hro.com
4 Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
leila.knox@hro.com
5 HOLJvlE ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
6 560 Mission Street) Suite 250
7 San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone: (415) 268-2000
8 Facsimile: (415) 268-1999
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
12
13
14
CASE NO. CVIl-D8083 R (MANx)
Courthouse News Service,
15
v.
17
18
19
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
OF WILLIAM GIRDNER IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION OF
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
FOR PRELIl\flNARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff,
16
Michael Planet, in his official capacity as
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court.
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge: The
20
Defendant.
21
Nov. 21, 2011
10:00 am
G-8 (2nd Floor)
Hon. Manuel L. Real
22 I------------------------------~
23
I, William Girdner, declare and state as follows:
24
I am the founder and editor of Courthouse News Service ("Courthouse
1.
25
26
News"), a nationwide legal news service and the plaintiff in the above-captioned
27
action. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and could testify to them if
28
called as a witness.
1
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
OF WILLIAM GIRDNER
Case No. CVll-08083R (MANx)
111SS80 vl ••f
FER6
se 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 28
1
2.
Filed 11/07/11
Page 2 of9
Page JD#:687
As a preliminary matter, I understand that Defendant has claimed that
2
delays in access to newly filed civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints do not harm
3
Courthouse News or its subscribers. To the contrary, Courthouse News' subscribers
4
are quick to notice when newsworthy complaints are not reported in one of
5
Courthouse News' litigation reports, and they do not hesitate to contact Courthouse
6
News directly by phone regarding the lack of reporting on a particular complaint.
7
When access to new civil complaints is delayed, information on an important case
8
often comes to their attention through other channels - through the messengers that
9
file civil complaints, through the plaintiffs lawyer who can manipulate press coverage
10
by providing the complaint to a targeted audience, and through a court's online docket
11
(i. e., where the court posts online docket information before the corresponding case
12
can be seen by journalists). Courthouse News loses the confidence and goodwill of its
13
subscribers when they hear through these various channels about a civil unlimited
14
jurisdiction complaint that Courthouse News cannot report because it does not have
15
access to it. Subscribers, through telephone calls to me and others at Courthouse
16
News, express anger with Courthouse News' reports, mock Courthouse News'
17
newsgathering efforts, ask for explanations regarding the failure to report on new civil
18
complaints in a timely manner, and blame Courthouse News for the losses of
19
important clients they attribute to the delayed reports.
20
3.
Likewise, subscribers also complain about reports that, like the Ventura
21
Superior portion of the Central Coast Report. rely on docket coverage because the
22
complaints themselves are not made available until several days after the complaint is
23
filed. Directing members of the news media to online docket reports for information
24
regarding new civil complaints is becoming a worrisome trend in some
25
courts. Because of the meager content of reports that rely on docket information, law
26
firms then question the value of their subscriptions with Courthouse News. Recently,
27
a partner at a large California law finn emailed me to complain about such
28
reporting with respect to one problematic court that Courthouse News covers, and
2
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARA HON OF WILLIAM GIRDNER
Case No. CVII-08083R
(MANx)
~1"80 V2.Bf
FER7
se 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 28
Filed 11/07/11
Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:688
1
stated that such limited information was not much better than no information at all. I
2
was told by the partner that the law finn, which has been a subscriber to Courthouse
3
News for ten years, spends a significant amount oftime and effort tracking down civil
4
complaints from this particular court that are of interest given the lack of information
5
available in Courthouse News' report. Even then, the amount oftime that has passed
6
since the filing of the complaint usually means the newsworthiness of the complaint
7
has passed.
8
4.
I also understand that Defendant has pointed to Courthouse News' Report
9
Card detailing access to newly filed civil complaints filed at superior courts around
10
California, which was compiled at my direction, as an example of how there is no
11
tradition of access in California superior courts. To the contrary, there is a strong
12
tradition of access to newly filed civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints in California,
13
as indicated in the Report Card's detail of access at the Alameda, Los Angeles, San
14
Francisco, Riverside and Santa Clara superior courts. In addition to highlighting these
15
courts where the tradition of access remains strong. the Report Card was intended to
16
document the deterioration of access at other California superior courts that
17
Courthouse News has recently witnessed for the purpose of demonstrating the merits
18
of Senate Bill 326, for which Courthouse News was one of the co-sponsors.
19
5.
While I understand and do not dispute the budgetary restraints that
20
California's judicial system is facing overall, and that individual superior courts are
21
facing in particular, my personal experience as editor of Courthouse News over the
22
last twenty-one years has been that providing access to case-initiating documents does
23
not require the expenditure of large sums of money or additional staffing. If anything,
24
the cost of providing same-day access to newly filed civil complaints is nominal, as I
25
have personally observed time and again. My personal observation is that where
26
delays in access occur, it is not because of budgetary constraints, but most frequently
27
because the clerk's staff does not allow the press or public access to newly filed civil
28
3
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF WlLLlAM GIRDNER
#75580 v2 •• r
Case No. CVII-08083R (MANx)
FER8
se 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 28
Filed 11/07/11
Page 4 of 9 Page 10 #:689
1
unlimited jurisdiction complaints until after a range of tasks associated with
2
processing those complaints has been completed.
3
6.
By way of example as to how budget constraints are not a limiting factor
4
in providing same-day access to newly filed complaints, in late 1999, I attempted to
5
work with defendant Michael Planet, who was at that time the court administrator for
6
the King County Superior Court in Seattle, on providing same-day access to newly
7
filed complaints filed in that court. At the time, Washington courts were facing
8
budget shortfalls, and I was informed by Mr. Planet that providing same-day access to
9
the press was a low priority, particularly in light of these constraints. It was only after
10
Courthouse News obtained counsel and wrote to the presiding judge and I met with
11
the presiding judge that court officials agreed to allow reporters to see the new actions
12
on the day they were filed.
13
7.
When same-day access was granted in King County Superior Court, the
14
procedure consisted of allowing the Courthouse News' reporter to walk behind the
15
sixth-floor intake counter to a cleared counter space roughly two feet long, An intake
16
clerk would then walk ten to fifteen feet to bring a basket with new civil complaints
17
from the intake counter to that work space. No further effort was required by the staff.
18
The expenditure of staff time and court money can be and often is as simple as
19
opening a door, or allowing the press to open the door. As demonstrated at the King
20
County Superior Court, at the most, providing press access might require a court
21
employee to walk documents to a review area, a task that Courthouse News
22
consistently volunteers to undertake itself and in fact performs in many courts across
23
the country. As I have seen in courts around the country, providing the news media
24
with prompt access to new civil complaints does not require a court to spend its
25
limited funds or hire extra personnel. Indeed, it is my personal observation that citing
26
budget shortfalls as a reason to deny same-day access to new civil complaints is a red
27
herring.
28
4
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
OF WILLIAM
GlRDNER
Case No. CVll·08083R
(MANx)
117SS8D v2 .of
FER9
se 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
8.
-MAN
Document 28
Filed 11/07/11
Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:690
The claim that e-filing is a necessary component to providing prompt
2
access to newly filed civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints fails to correspond to any
3
reality that I have personally observed. No superior court in California mandates e-
4
filing for all civil cases. Yet Courthouse News has excellent, same-day access in a
5
host ofCalifomia superior courts where paper filing is the norm. Access to e-filed
6
civil complaints depends on the same factors as access to paper-filed complaints, that
7
is the willingness of court officials to allow news reporters to see complaints before all
8
official processing tasks are accomplished. For example, the one superior court in
9
California that mandates e-filing for an important and news-generating class of
10
unlimited civil cases is Orange County Superior Court C'Orange Superior"), where
11
complex commercial cases must be e-filed. The delay in access to those e-filed
12
complaints is actualJy longer on average than the access to paper filed complaints. We
13
have been told by the court's staff that the delay is the result of "QC" or quality
14
control, which means that a clerk checks over the e-filed complaint before allowing
15
the press to see it. In my experience, e-filing is simply another means of delivering a
16
document to a court and in itself has nothing to do with access.
17
9.
Orange Superior, which, like Ventura Superior, now uses the California
18
Court Case Management System ("CCMS"), also provides a good example of how not
19
only e-filing, but other electronic technologies, have led to recent delays in access in
20
some courts where there has been a tradition of same-day access. Consistent same-
21
day access to new civil complaints also used to be the rule at Orange Superior, which
22
Courthouse News has been covering for most of its 21-year history. Under Orange
23
Superior's past procedures, near the end of each court day, a box with new complaints
24
was delivered from the intake area to the records area so that reporters could review
25
the complaints and, once that review was completed, return the box to the records
26
staff. The Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, and the Daily Journal a11
27
checked the new filings regularly, as did Courthouse News. Approximately ten years
28
ago, however, the clerk's office informed the press that they would no longer be
5
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
OF WILLIAM GIRDNER
Case No. CVI1-08083R
(MANx)
1175580 V2 .ar
FER10
se 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 28
Filed 11/07/11
Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:691
1
provided with access to new civil complaints on a same day basis; instead, new filings
2
would be made available the day after filing. Complaints continued to be provided in
3
a box, but they were no longer provided on a same-day basis. At some point later, the
4
court started scanning cases, and media access deteriorated even further, with the
5
review of the new complaints fa1ling even further behind. Finally, in July 2009, the
6
clerk's office did away with the box altogether and the media's exclusive means of
7
reviewing new complaints was through the court's computer terminals. In May 2010,
8
the court began offering e-filing for all civil cases, with e-filing being mandatory for
9
complex cases.
10
10,
As it stands, newly-filed unlimited civil complaints at Orange Superior
11
are rarely made available for review on the day they are filed, Most are not made
12
available until one court day after filing, a problematic delay in and of itself that is
13
exacerbated when the delays occur over a weekend or holiday (or both), resulting in
14
actual delays that are even longer. In addition, a significant minority of new unlimited
15
civil complaints are delayed by two or more court days, with e-filed complex
16
complaints taking longer on average to be made available for review than paper-filed
17
complaints,
18
technologies have resulted in worse, and not improved, access to newly filed civil
19
unlimited jurisdiction complaints. To my knowledge, Orange Superior is the only
20
California superior court that has e-filing capabilities for all civil case types,
21
Overall, the efforts on Orange Superior's part to utilize electronic
11.
The switch to e-filing at Nevada's Eighth Judicial District Court in Las
22
Vegas is another example of how e-filing is not a cure-all for delays. Priorto
23
switching to e-filing in February 2010, Courthouse News' reporter had same-day
24
access to paper- filed complaints, regardless of whether the complaints had been fully
25
processed.
26
civil complaints, the court initially did not provide same-day access to complaints
27
because of a procedural step that required the clerk's staff to electronically "accept" a
28
new complaint after it had been filed, which resulted in new complaints not appearing
Following the switch to mandatory e-filing, which included e-filing of
6
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
OF WILLIAM GIRDNER
Case No. CVll·08083R (MANx)
#75580 v2 saf
FER11
se 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 28
Filed 11/07/11
Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:692
I
on the court's public access terminals until the next day. After Courthouse News
2
brought this issue to the attention of court officials, the court found a solution through
3
an electronic "in-box" through which reporters can essentially see exactly what
4
staffers in the clerk's office see as new complaints are electronically filed throughout
5
the day.
6
12.
In contrast, many of the California superior courts that do not have e-
7
filing programs at all, or only have e-filing programs for limited case types, are still
8
able to provide same-day access to all newly filed civil unlimited jurisdiction
9
complaints. For example, at the San Francisco County Superior Court ("San
10
Francisco Superior"), where I understand that aU court filings, except for those that
11
involve asbestos litigation, are hand-filed, complaints filed on a particular day,
12
including those that are accompanied by fee-waiver applications, are placed in a
13
media box between 3 and 4:30 p.m. and made available to news reporters for review
14
that same day in the intake and records area.
15
13.
The fee-waiver applications themselves are separated from the complaint
16
and are not provided to the reporter. Courthouse News' reporters covering the
17
superior courts in the counties of Los Angeles and Alameda also see civil complaints
18
that are accompanied by fee waiver applications on the same day of filing (again, the
19
applications themselves are not provided to Courthouse News' reporters). In the
20
superior courts for the counties of Contra Costa, Santa Clara and Riverside,
21
Courthouse News' reporters are able to see the large majority of civil unlimited
22
jurisdiction complaints on the same day they are filed, without any distinction as to
23
those civil complaints that may have been accompanied by fee waiver applications.
24
Again, all ofthese courts are hand-filing courts.
25
14.
Major courts around the country that are also primarily hand-filing courts
26
also are able to provide same-day access to case-initiating documents, in particular the
27
Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta; the Jefferson County District Court in
28
Beaumont, Texas; the Kings County Supreme Court in Brooklyn; the Cook County
7
SUPPLEMENTAL
1/75580
DECLARATION
OF WILLIAM GIRDNER
Case No. CVII-08083R(MANx)
v~.of
FER12
se 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 28
Filed 11/07/11
Page 8 of 9
Page lD #:693
1
Circuit Court in Chicago; the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati;
2
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland; the Dallas County
3
District Court; the Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit; the Tarrant County District
4
Court in Ft. Worth, Texas; the Harris County Civil District Court in Houston; the
5
Marion County Circuit and Superior courts in Indianapolis;
6
Circuit Court in Louisville,
7
the Milwaukee
8
Davidson County Chancery
9
Nashville; the Oklahoma
the Jefferson County
Kentucky; the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan;
County Court the Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis;
the
Court in Nashville; the Davidson County Circuit Court in
County Court in Oklahoma City; the Douglas County
10
District Court in Omaha; the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Orlando; the Maricopa
11
County Superior Court in Phoenix; the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in
12
Pittsburgh; the MuItnomah
13
Circuit Court in Missouri; the Ramsey County District Court in
14
County Superior Court in Seattle; and the Hillsborough
15
Tampa.
16
15.
Additionally,
County Court in Portland, Oregon; the St. Louis City
case-initiating
st. Paul;
the King
County Circuit Court in
documents are required to be hand-filed at
17
the U.S. District Courts for both the Northern District and Central District of
18
California.
19
paper copies of newly filed civil complaints.
In both of these districts, reporters are provided with same-day access to
In my experience,
20
16.
21
complaints
on a same-day
22
complaints,
with one exception.
23
Courthouse
News' reporter reviews new filings at a desk next to the clerk who takes
24
the checks from the complaints.
25
new civil complaints
26
elsewhere,
and regardless
27
17.
In requesting
28
and in all the courts where I have reviewed new
basis, Courthouse News does not see checks on civil
Thatexception
was the Orleans Parish Court, where
Courthouse News does not see checks attached to
in any of the other courts that it covers, either in California or
of whether it is a state or federal court.
access for the press, it has been my experience that clerk's
office officials who do not "Wishto grant such access will emphasize and sometimes
8
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
OF WILLIAM GIRDNER
Case No. CVll-08083R
(MANx)
~1S5BO"loaf
FER13
Case 2:11-cv-Oa083-R
-MAN
Document 28
Filed 11/07/11
Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:694
1 overstate the complexity of their operations, as though press access would disrupt a
2
finely tuned machine of constantly moving parts. In fact. most new complaints funnel
3
into a courthouse through a single room. which is the case in Ventura. When a
4
reporter is physically in that same room, it is my experience that it becomes a
5
relatively simply matter for the court to either gather the complaints together for press
6
review
7
that review. In my direct observation, the new cases are not constantly in a state of
8
motion and processing but are in fact stationary for hours at a time, waiting for
9
another part of the official process to take place. Many courts have different windows
Of
allow the reporter to fetch the cases him or herself in order to accomplish
10
where cases can by filed, and a separate window or delivery method to favor
11
messenger services. But as long as the funnel into the court is through a single room,
12
or choke point, the new actions can be reviewed by the press in that same room on the
13
day they are
14
day of filing, before
15
other departments in the court.
l6
filed. Indeed. the new complaints are best reviewed in that room on the
they have started on their various and sometimes separate paths to
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
17
foregoing is true and correct, Executed at Pasadena, California on this ~day
18
of
November 2011.
19
20
William Girdner
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLA.RATION OF WIllIAM
GIRDNER
Case No. CV 1 J -08083R (MAN x)
I17SSSOv.21l1f
FER14
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25
Filed 10/31/11
Page 1 of 30
Page 10 #:502
Robert A. Naeve (State Bar No. 106095)
rnaeve@jonesday.com
Erica L. Reilley (State Bar No. 211615)
elreilley@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 851-3939
Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
Attorneys for Defendant
MICHAEL PLANET, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS COURT EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/CLERK OF TIffi VENTURA
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff,
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,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
November 21, 2011
10:00 a.m.
s
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_ i_Case
Deft's Opp. to PIPs Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER15
Case
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25
1
Filed 10/31111
Page 2 of30
Page ID #:503
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
Page
3
IN"1RODUCTION
1
4
STATE1v1ENTOF FACTS
2
5
A. Ventura Superior Court Clerks Must Process By Hand More Than
150,000 New Filings Per Year
2
8
B. The State's Budget Crisis Affects Ventura Superior Court's Ability
To Process Newly Filed Unlimited Civil Complaints
3
9
1. A Four-Year Hiring Freeze Prevents Hiring Of New CPAs
3
2. The Superior Court Reduced Public Hours And Established A
"Drop Box" For Late-In-The Day Filings
4
3. New Complaints Can Only Be "Received" For Later Processing
By New Filings Desk CPAs
4
C. Despite These Constraints, Newly Filed Unlimited Civil Complaints
Typically Are Available The Day After Receipt
5
D. eNS Cannot Honestly Claim There Is A "Longstanding Tradition"
Of "Same-Day Access" To Newly Filed Complaints
,
5
E. Starting In About November 2010, CNS Demanded "Same-Day
Access" To Newly Filed Unlimited Civil Complaints
7
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ARGUMENT
9.
20
21
22
23
I.
eNS FAILS TO SATISFY ANY OF THE FOUR FACTORS THAT
MIGlIT OTHERWISE JUSTIFY TIIE "DISFAVORED"
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IT SEEKS
24
A. CNS's Requested Mandatory Injunction Is "Disfavored" And
Subject To Even Stricter Scrutiny
25
B. CNS Cannot Succeed On The Merits
26
27
28
,., 9
9
12
L CNS Does Not Have a Right to "Same-Day Access."
12
2. CNS Has Only A Right To Reasonable Access, Which eNS
Already Receives
15
- I-
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
CaseNo. CV 11-08083 R(MANx)
FER16
Case
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
1
Page 3 of 30
Page 10 #:504
Page
3
C. CNS Cannot Demonstrate
Less Irreparable Harm
4
5
A "Real And Concrete" Harm, Much
16
1. CNS Cannot Avail Itself Of Any Presumed Harm Derived
Under Inapposite Freedom Of Expression Cases
7
8
16
2.
6
18
CNS's Alleged Loss Of Goodwill Is Hypothetical,
At Best..
D. No Clear Showing That The Balance Of Equities Tips In Favor Of
eNS
9
18
E. CNS's Requested Injunction Will Not Serve The Public Interest;
Anything, It Will Harm It
10
11
13
Filed 10/31/11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
2
12
Document 25
II.
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE,
A BOND IS REQUIRED
CONCLUSION
If
20
22
23
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_ii -
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER17
Case :11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document25
1
Filed 10/31/11
Page4of30
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page ID#:505
Page
CASES
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,
632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011)
·
15
Associated Press v. US. Dist. ct.,
705 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1983)
15
Carroll v. President & Com'rs of Princess Anne,
393 U.S. 175 (1968)
16
Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer,
522 F .2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975)
14
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Courthouse News Service v. Jackson,
No. H-09-1844, 2009 WL 2163609 1
" 13, 23
Dahl v. HEM Pharms. Corp.,
7 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1993)
10
Dep 't of Parks & Rec. v. Bazaar Del Mundo, Inc.,
448 F 3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006)
11
Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City,
305 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Iowa 2004)
22
Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
356 F.3d 1256 (10th CiT. 2004)
18
Elrod v. Burns.
427 U.S. 347 (1976)
16
Estate a/Hearst,
67 Cal. App. 3d 777 (1977)
14
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. ci.,
457 U.S. 596 (1982)
16
Globe v. Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski,
868 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989)
14
28
_iii _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim.lnj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER18
Case
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 25
1
4
5
6
7
Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:506
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2
3
Filed 10/31/11
Page
Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co.,
24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1994)
14
Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp.,
174F.3d411 (4thCir. 1999)
22
Houchins v. KQED, Inc.,
438 U.S. 1 (1978)
17
In re Charlotte Observer,
882 F.2d 850 (4th Cir. 1989)
14
In re Marriage of Burkle,
135 Cal. App. 4th 1045,37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 805 (2006).;
12
In re NVIDIA Corp.,
2008 WL 1859067 (N.D. Cal. 2008)
12
Jacobsen v, Us. Postal Service,
812 F.2d 1151 (9th Cir. 1987)
17
Jorgensen v. Cassiday,
320 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2003)
22
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006)
12
Klein v. City of San Clemente,
584 F.3d 1196 (9th Cit. 2009)
20
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League,
634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980)
16, 18
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co.,
571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009)
10
Mastrovincenzo v. City a/New York,
435 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2006)
10
Mazurek v. Armstrong,
520 U.S. 968 (1997)
9
_ iv _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (11ANx)
FER19
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
:11wcv~08083wR -MAN
Document 25
Flied 10/31/11
Page 6 of 30
Page 10 #:507
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Nebraska Press Ass 'n v. Stuart,
427 U.S. 539.96 S. Ct. 2791,49 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1976)
14
New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Auth.,
652 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2011)
12
New York Times Co. v. US.,
403 U.S. 713 (1971)
16
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 98 S. Ct. 130655 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978)
20
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Us. Dist. Ct.,
156 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 1998)
15
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,
478 US 1, 106 S. Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986)
12
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,
448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814.65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980)
12, 16
SHA.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County,
499 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2007)
17
Sammartano v, First Judicial Dist. Ct. , In and For Cnty. of Carson City,
303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002)
20
Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers,
408 F .3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005)
22
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad,
420 U.S. 546 (1975)
10
Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California,
13 F3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1994)
10
Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc.,
316 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1963)
11
Tradition Club Assocs., LLC v. Tradition Golf Club,
No. EDCV 08-1581, 2008 WL 5352927 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18,2008)
22
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_V-
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER20
Case
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25
Filed 10/31/11
Page 7 of 30
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page 10 #:508
(continued)
3
4
5
6
7
Page
United States v. Brooklier,
685 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1982)
15
United States v. Edwards,
823 F .2d 111 (5th Cir. 1987)
14
United States v. Simone,
14 F.3d 833 (3d Cir. 1994)
14, 15
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Vassiliades v. Israely,
714 F. Supp. 604 (D. Conn. 1989)
13
Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc.,
752 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1984)
17
Whiteland Woods, L.P. v, Township a/West Whiteland,
193 F.3d 177 (3rd Cir. 1999)
17
Winter v. Nat 'I Res. De! Council,
555 U.S. 7 (2008)
9, 19
Wood v. Georgia,
370 U.S. 375 (1962)
18
STATUTES
19
Cal. Gov't Code § 68150(1)
20
17
RULES
21
16
Fed. Rule Civ. Proe. 65
22
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- Vl-
Deft's Opp, to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (l\1f\.Nx)
FER21
Ca e 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
-MAN
Document 25
Filed 10/31/11
Page 8 of 30 Page 10 #:509
INTRODUCTION
2
Plaintiff Courthouse News Service ("CNS") seeks an immediate mandatory
3
injunction against Michael D. Planet, in his official capacity as Executive Officer
4
and Clerk ofthe Superior Court of California, County of Ventura (the "Ventura
5
Superior Court"). CNS contends it has a constitutional or conunon law right to
6
"same-day access" to all newly filed unlimited civil complaints, and that Ventura
7
Superior Court must change its current procedures-which
8
provide reasonable access, as the law requires, and actually provides same- or next-
9
day access in the majority of instances-to
10
do everything possible to
guarantee "same-day access." CNS's
requested injunction is fundamentally flawed in several respects, and must be denied.
11
First, as detailed in Ventura Superior Court's Motion to Dismiss (filed
12
October 20, 2011), CNS's requested injunction would require thisfederal court to
13
involve itself in the administration of the state's judicial system, which runs afoul of
14
settled principles of federalism, comity, and institutional competence, and which
15
urges this Court to exercise its discretion to abstain from the case entirely.
16
Second, CNS requests a "disfavored" mandatory injunction insofar as it seeks
17
to compel Ventura Superior Court to take an affirmative action-that
is, to guarantee
18
"same-day access" to all new unlimited civil complaints. This type of injunction is
19
subj ect to heightened scrutiny that eNS cannot survive given that it cannot survive
20
even ordinary scrutiny for issuance of a preliminary injunction.
21
Third. as just alluded to, CNS cannot make the requisite clear showing on any
22
of the four factors it must establish. It cannot prevail on the merits because it cannot
23
establish a constitutional or common law right to "same-day access;" it cannot
24
establish irreparable harm because any alleged harm cannot be presumed as a matter
25
of law and is not sufficiently "real and concrete;" it cannot show the equities tip in its
26
favor because the harm to Ventura Superior Court is grave compared to CNS's
27
isolated and legally unsupportable complaints; and issuing the type of injunction
28
CNS requests actually would harm the public interest. The Motion must be denied.
_1_
Deft's Opp. to Plfs Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER22
Ca e 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 25
STATEMENT
1
2
3
4
Filed 10/31/11
A.
Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:510
OF FACTS
Ventura Su erior Court Clerks Must Process B Hand More Tha
.150,000 New Filings Per Year.
As explained in the Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar (filed concurrently
5
herewith, ("Kanatzar Decl.t'j), who is one of the Deputy Executive Officers of
6
Ventura Superior Court, the court receives and processes more than 150,000 separate
7
filings each year. (Kanatzar Decl. , 5.) The Civil Department employs 14 Court
8
Processing Assistants ("CP As") and one supervisor to process all these filings. (Id.-,r
9
6.) Assuming there are 260 court days-which
is far too forgiving, as that number
10
only takes into account weekends, and not court holidays, mandatory closure days,
11
staffvacation days, and the like-that
12
equates to more than 575 filings each day.
None of these l50,OOO-plusdocuments can be filed electronically. Unlike
13
federal courts, which have long since adopted PACER, or state courts that have
14
electronic filing capabilities, all filings in Ventura must be processed by hand.
15
Ms. Kanatzar puts it this way in paragraph 4 of her Declaration:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ventura Superior Court maintains only standard physical
files for all actions pending in the County of Ventura.
Litigants must physically file paper copies of their
documents. They can do so either by depositing them with
CPAs in our Civil Department as described elsewhere in
this Declaration, or by faxing or emailing their documents
to our fax-filing desk CPA, who must then generate paper
documents for our files. Therefore, unlike the clerk's
office in federal and other electronic filing courts, the
clerk's office in the Ventura Superior Court is burdened by
the substantial additional administrative task imposed by
the need to process by hand every document filed with the
court.
25
Hence, at least this much is certain of the court's current operations:
26
First, each of the court's CPAs carries a very heavy workload to begin with.
27
SeconcL it is incredibly misleading to suggest that the court's CPAs need "only"
28
process "fewer than eight complaints per court day." (Mot. at 6.) The truth is that
_2 _
Deft's Opp. to PIf's Mot for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER23
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11 Page
#:511
10 of 30
Page 10
1
the court's CPAs handle hundreds ofjilings each day, many of which (including ex
2
parte applications and motions of various types) demand more immediate attention
3
than ''new complaint files [which] remain essentially inactive for approximately 65
4
days, until the summons and complaint are served, and the defendant(s) answer or
5
take some other action." (Kanatzar Decl. ~ 17.) And third, eNS compares apples
6
with oranges by suggesting that Ventura Superior Court should be ordered to
7
guarantee "same-day access" to new complaints because the federal courts and other
8
courts identified in its survey that accept electronic filings have the ability to do so.
9
(Compl, ~~ 11, 13; Marshall Decl. ~~ 4-6; Girdner Decl. ~~ 13-16 .)
10
11
12
B.
The State's Bud et Crisis Affects Ventura Su erior Court's Abilit
To Process Newly Filed Unlimited Civil Complaints.
The responsibilities borne by each CPA have and will continue to become
13
even heavier. Over the last three years, Ventura Superior Court's budget has been
14
cut by more than $13 million, which has resulted in a growing deficit between its
15
revenue and expenses. (Declaration of Robert Sherman in Support of Defendant's
16
Opposition to Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently
17
herewith ("Shennan Decl.")
18
has reached $5.9 million; next fiscal year, the deficit is expected to exceed $12
19
million. (Id. Ijf~ 12-13.)
20
21
1.
1f 3.)
This fiscal year, Ventura Superior Court's deficit
A Four-Year Hiring Freeze Prevents Hiring Of New CPAs.
These increasing budgetary shortfalls have required a four-year-running hiring
22
freeze and increased mandatory furlough days; as a result, Ventura Superior Court's
23
administrative vacancy rate has more than doubled-from
24
(Kanatzar Dec1. ~ 11; Sherman Decl. ~ 5.)· Moreover, at least eight ofthose
25
vacancies are for positions within the civil processing unit and records departments,
26
thereby directly implicating the resources available to process filings such as those
27
that CNS seeks guaranteed "same-day access" to here. (Kanatzar Decl. ~ 11.)
22 in 2008, to 48 in 2011.
28
_3 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER24
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
2.
2
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:512
reduced its public business hours from a closing time of 5 :00 p.m. back to 4:00 p.m.
-,r 12.)
(Id.
6
earlier, at 3 :00 p.m. (Shennan
8
9
10
11
12
Page 10
The Superior Court Reduced Public Hours And Established
A "Drop Box" For Late-In-The Day Filings.
5
7
Page 11 of 30
To further mitigate the impact of budgetary shortfalls, Ventura Superior Court
3
4
-MAN
And effective January 1,2012, the clerk's office will close another hour
Decl. ~ 7.) To accommodate
this change, Ventura
Superior Court installed a secure drop box in which filings of all types could be
received.
(Kanatzar Decl.
-,r
13.) That drop box is checked twice per day--once
at
4:30 p.m. to check how many documents it contains, and once at 5 :00 p.m. to
retrieve all the documents and take them inside for processing.
deposited in the drop box are stamped "received"
(Id.) All documents
on the back of the first page of the
filing, and are deemed filed on that date. (Id.)
3.
13
New Complaints
Can Only Be "Received"
For Later
Processing By New Filings Desk CP As.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
As an additional mitigating measure, Ventura Superior Court changed the
procedure
by which it accepts new complaints
new complaints
for filing. Prior to June 2010, most
were received by the clerk's office at the public filing windows, and
CPAs were immediately
responsible
for fully processing
and opening new files. (Id.
~ 14.) This practice of creating new files upon receipt of complaints
window became increasingly
unworkable
due to the small number of open clerk
windows and the reduced number ofCPAs
available to staff them. (Jd.)
Ventura Superior Court therefore implemented
new complaints
could only be "dropped
by back-counter
CPAs. (Id.
~-,r
at the filing
a change requiring that most
off" at the filing windows to be processed
15-16.) This change allowed the Civil Department's
limited staff to deal with other customers waiting in line at the civil filing windows)
and to handle ex parte applications
and other time-sensitive
matters.
(Id. ~ 17.)
27
28
_4 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER25
ase2:11-cv-08083-R
1
C.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
-MAN Document25 Filed10/31/11
#:513
Page 12 of 30 PagelD
Despite These Constraints, Newly Filed Unlimited Civil Complaints
Typically Are Available The Day Atler Receipt.
CNS complains that during the period from August 8, 2011, through
September 2, 2011, it was permitted same-day or next-day access in only a very
small percentage of the 152 new unlimited civil complaints Ms. Krolak reviewed.
(Compl. ~ 29.) These figures conflict in every way with what the actual data shows.
There were 147 total new unlimited civil complaints filed during the time
period at issue. (Declaration of Julie Camacho in Support of Defendant's Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith
["Camacho Decl."] ~ 15.) Forty-seven (47) of those new complaints were received,
processed and placed in the media bin all on the same day-i.e.,
"same-day access."
(Id. ~ 16.) Fifty-four (54) of those new complaints were received on one day and
processed and placed in the media bin the next day-i.e.,
next-day access. (Id ~ 17.)
And 18 of those new complaints were processed and placed in the media bin within
two days of receipt. (Id. ~ 18.) Thus, a full 77% of new complaints were accessible
within two days after receipt, with the bulk of them available the same- or next-day.
Of the remainder, at least 17 new complaints (or another 11%) needed to be
assigned to ajudicial officer immediately. (Id. -,r 19.) Another seven did not get
placed in the media bin due to an inadvertent clerical error. (Id. ~ 20.) The balance
20
of new complaints that had delayed access-only
21
that can be explained. (Id. -,r 21.)1
22
D.
a handful-all
had unusual delays
eNS Cannot Honestly Claim There Is A "Longstanding
Tradition"
Of "Same-Day Access" To Newly Filed Complaints.
23
24
25
CNS claims the First Amendment guarantees a right of "same-day access" to
newly filed civil complaints because of an allegedly "longstanding tradition for both
26
27
28
I Similarly, in a February 7, 2011 letter to Ventura Superior Court eNS points
to four cases demonstrating access "nowhere near same-day." (Marshall Decl., Ex.
4.) CNS's claims again conflict with the actual data. (Camacho Decl. ~-,r 22-23.)
_5 _
Deft's Opp. to PIt's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (lMANx)
FER26
ase2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document25 Filed 10/31/11
#:514
Page130f30
PagelD
1
state and federal courts to provide reporters who visit the court every day with access
2
to new complaints
3
Whatever
at the end of the day on which they are filed."
else may be said of that alleged "tradition,"
4
argument
in two of its most recent public pronouncements.
5
eNS published
6
(Compl.
'if
4.)
CNS contradicts its own
Access To Newly Filed Civil Complaints:"
its "Report Card Summary-Superior
First, in February 2011,
Court of the State of Californi
7
8
....'"
!'I~~t
9
.... I~
~
..I1bo:-d
·~ML.CQl~~
A
~Ca~5"i'''Ior'ClJ'-.II1
10
";;;;;;.;;c"".,,;;;;;;c;;;;
~ •....;
~"~~~.M,",,['.'rtItL
•
"~r""""·~
~~~~:===:::.+
11
r;:;c~·~IijItIlMc._
:-=
.
~~('~:sm...r.::.C:A
..~.
'rmRlio(~~""*'r~~'-----'''''_'''''''''''''--'-<'_dO------<'''''~
12
~_c~~~~~~.;_'.---.-""
"
.
........
to
~
~.......
c
~~p~~S!lpe.r~UII
.
.
c
~r~"::"'~S'~~rC9UII
13
e
s,.~ILIo~Iq~~("""
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(Declaration
of Karen Dalton-Koch
for Preliminary
Injunction,
Submitted in Opposition to Plaintiff's
filed concurrently
herewith ("Dalton-Koch
Motion
Decl.")
Ex. A.) CNS gave "As" to 5 courts that maintain electronic files (Alameda, Los
Angeles, Riverside,
Santa Clara) or that are considerably
staff (San Francisco, Los Angeles).
courts failed to provide "same-day
Second, in sponsoring
24
larger and have greater
However. CNS reported that the remaining
access."
12
(Ibid.)
SB 326--see Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss at 8-9-
CNS claimed to have "directly experienced the deterioration
of timely access to the
25
civil court record.';
(Deft's Req. for Judicial Notice In Support of Mot. to Dismiss,
26
27
28
Ex. Bat B9.) Indeed, it appears that CNS supported SB 326 precisely because there
is no historical right to "same-day
access" to newly filed complaints
_6 _
in California.
Deft's Opp ..to PIf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER27
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:515
E.
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
only "dropped off' complaints,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
its change for processing
eNS changed its business model by deciding to visit
Ventura Superior Court on a daily, rather than the once- or twice-weekly
(CompI., ~~ 22,25.)
demanding
InNovember 2010, eNS's
"same-day
basis.
reporter, Juliana Krolak, started
access" to newly filed unlimited civil complaints.
(Id. ~ 25.)
From about February 2011 through March 2011, Ventura Superior Court staff
communicated
with CNS on several occasions to try and reach a compromise
CNS's demands.
procedures
Ventura Superior Court reprioritized
by which newly filed complaints
(ld. ~~22-27.)
public.
on
(Kanatzar Decl. ~~ 19-20,22-27.)
As a result of those exchanges,
11
12
Civil Complaints.
Shortly after Ventura Superior Court implemented
3
4
In About November 2010 eNS Demanded "Same-Da
Startin
Access" To Newly Filed Unlimited
2
Page 14 of 30 Page 10
priority" to processing
Specifically,
are processed
the
and made available to the
the procedure was changed to give "the highest
new civil unlimited complaints,
so that they could be filed
and placed in the media bin with a general two-day turnaround.
(Jd. ~~ 27-28.)
To
further facilitate this change, Ventura Superior Court even obtained this past August
an exception from the court-wide hiring freeze to create a second new filings desk
and to staff it with a CPA whose first priority is to identify and process newly filed
unlimited civil complaints.
(fd. ~ 29.)
But CNS still remains unsatisfied.
why "same-day
access"--certainly
There are, however,
a laudable goal--cannot
a number of reasons
be guaranteed in every
instance:
•
Unpredictable
"drop off." New complaints
can be "dropped off' in a
number of different ways. and may not get picked up for processing
until the end of
the day; Ventura Superior Court has no control over the timing by which these new
complaints
are dropped and therefore cannot guarantee "same-day
under even the best of circumstances.
access" to them
CId. ~ 31.)
28
_7 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER28
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25
Filed 10/31/11
Page 15 of 30 Page ID
#:516
1
•
Immediate judicial action. Certain new complaints must be assigned to
2
judicial officers immediately upon receipt, and may remain in chambers for one or
3
more days (or even weeks) as the judicial officer evaluates whether any additional
4
action needs to be taken. (Id. ~ 33.) These new complaints are placed in the media
5
bin upon release from chambers, but Ventura Superior Court cannot guarantee
6
"same-day access" prior to that point. (Id.)
7
•
Quality control. When new CPAs begins working in the clerk's office,
8
it is not uncommon for them to process incomplete complaints that should be
9
rejected; to enter crucial case data improperly that would impair CCMS from
10
properly tracking and assigning the case; and to enter contact information for
11
attorneys improperly. (Id. -,r 34.) To maintain the public's trust in its system and
12
filings, Ventura Superior Court subjects to a quality control review any new files
13
processed by new CPAs. (Id.) This review must occur before the file is sent to
14
media bin so that errors may be corrected and resubmitted. (fd.) This process can
15
take several days and is another reason why Ventura Superior Court cannot
16
guarantee "same-day access" to those complaints.
17
eNS claims that guaranteeing "same-day access" is as "simple as opening a
18
door" or permitting CNS to "go behind the counter" to review "dropped-off'
19
complaints that have not yet been processed. (Girdner Decl. -,r 22.) As Ventura
20
Superior Court has tried to explain to eNS, this is not a workable solution. First,
21
Ventura Superior Court's security procedures were tightened considerably after a
22
shooting incident several years ago at the Employment Development Department in
23
Oxnard. (Kanatzar Decl, -,r 36.) Ventura Superior Court's current policies prohibit
24
members of the general public from accessing processing desks where new civil
25
unlimited complaints are maintained prior to processing. (Id.) Second, Ventura
26
Superior Court cannot allow CNS or other members ofthe public to review new
27
unlimited civil complaints until they are filed to ensure proper respect for the privacy
28
of its litigants. (Id. -,r 37.) It would be entirely inappropriate to permit CNS access to
_8 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER29
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:517
Page 16 of 30 Page 10
1
fee waiver requests or other documents=-which typically accompany new filings-
2
containing such confidential information. (Jd.) Third, permitting eNS access behind
3
the counter would violate Ventura Superior Court's accounting protocols, which
4
impose strict cash handling and audit procedures. (Id. -,r 38.)
5
Beyond all this, though, Ventura Superior Court fully complies with its legal
6
obligation to provide "reasonable access" to "court records," and overwhelmingly
7
that access is in fact provided on a same-day or next-day basis.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ARGUMENT
I.
CNS FAILS TO SATISFY ANY OF THE FOUR FACTORS THAT
MIGHT OTHERWISE JUSTIFY THE "DISFAVORED"
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IT SEEKS.
"[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that
should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of
persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (emphasis in original;
citation omitted). In Winter v. Nat'i Res. De! Council, 555 U.S. 7,20 (2008), the
United States Supreme Court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary
injunction must make a clear showing of all four following factors: (1) that it is
likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4)
that an injunction is in the public interest.
For the reasons discussed below, CNS cannot satisfy a single factor, much less
all four. And this outcome only is bolstered by the stricter scrutiny that must guide
this Court's consideration ofCNS's requested mandatory injunction.
23
24
25
26
27
A.
CNS's Re uested Mandato
In'unction
Subject To Even Stricter Scrutiny.
Is "Disfavored"
And
To avoid the more stringent scrutiny applied to disfavored mandatory
injunctions, eNS constructs an argument that, because the alleged "policy" sought to
be enjoined restricts First Amendment rights, eNS's requested injunction is
28
_9 ~
Deft's Opp. to PIPs Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER30
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25 Filed 10131111 Page 17 of 30 Page 10
#:518
1
presumed to preserve the status quo, and therefore is prohibitory
2
than mandatory.
3
F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994) (a "mandatory"
4
maintaining
5
quotations
6
(9th Cir. 1993) (stating that mandatory preliminary
7
heightened
8
the moving party").
9
in nature, rather
(Mot. at 7 & n.4.) Cf Stanley v. Univ. a/Southern California, 13
injunction "goes well beyond simpl
the status quo pendente lite [and] is particularly
disfavored")
(internal
and citations omitted); Dahl v. HEM Pharms. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403
injunctions
are "subject to a
scrutiny and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor
First, eNS's
CNS's construction
must fail.
position assumes too much. There is no First Amendment
(See infra Section I.B.l.) Thus, even if there was a
10
to "same-day
11
"presumption"
12
a person is free to exercise their rights (there is nor'), eNS cannot invoke it here.
13
access."
right
in First Amendment
Second, eNS mischaracterizes
cases that the status quo is the condition in which
the nature of its requested relief. "Whereas a
injunction prohibits a party from taking action, "[a] mandatory
14
prohibitory
15
injunction
16'
Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873,879-80
17
mandatory
18
infringing drug where record failed to establish harm) (internal quotation omitted).
19
Here, CNS tries to cleverly articulate its injunction as one "prohibiting him [Mr.
20
Planet] ... from continuing his policies resulting in delayed access to new unlimited
21
'jurisdiction
orders a responsible
party to 'take action."
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v.
(9th Cir. 2009) (vacating
injunction requiring defendant to take affirmative steps to recall
civil complaints."
(Compl, Prayer ~ 1 (emphasis added).)
But Ventura
22
Superior Court is providing access to newly filed unlimited civil complaints as
23
quickly as possible given the resources available and the competing
24
accurate processing
25
2 And CNS' s cited cases do not establish
otherwise. See Southeastern
Promotions, Ltd v. Conrad 420 U.S. 546, 562 (1975) (denying plaintiff's
26
27
28
oflitigants'
documents.
concerns over
What CNS really wants is an injunction
application to use municipal venue based on content of "speech' actually changed
status guo of venue Kenerallx being publicly available); Mastrovincenzo v. City of
New York, 435 F.3d 78,90 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that proper label can be
somewhat ambiguous because injunction commands usually can be phrased in either
prohibitory or mandatory terms).
_ 10 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj,
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER31
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:519
Page 18 of 30
Page 10
1
that makes Ventura Superior Court provide that access/aster.
2
faster requires an affirmative act. To be sure, if Ventura Superior Court simply
3
"stopped" what it was doing now, nothing would get processed and access would be
4
indefinitely delayed. CNS's requested injunction would require Ventura Superior
5
Court to "take action"-it
6
Doing something
is a mandatory injunction subject to heightened scrutiny.
Third, the mandatory nature of CNS's requested injunction only is
7
underscored by the fact that it does not seek to preserve the status quo, but instead
8
meaningfully alters it. "Status quo" is defmed as the last uncontested status that
9
preceded the pending controversy. See Dep
't
of Parks & Rec. v. Bazaar Del Mundo,
10
Inc., 448 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cit. 2006) (citing GoTo.Com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
11
202 F.3d 1199, 1210 (9th Cir. 2000»). Thus, ifCNS sought to preserve the status
12
quo, it would seek an injunction that would order Ventura Superior Court to not
13
change its current processes in a way that might negatively impact eNS's access to
14
newly filed unlimited civil complaints. That is not what CNS seeks. It wants a
15
preliminary injunction guaranteeing "same-day access"-now.
16
Fourth, CNS's requested injunction also would award it with all the relief to
17
which it claims it is entitled after a full trial on the merits, which is itself disfavored:
18
"[I]t is not usually proper to grant the moving party the full relief to which he might
19
be entitled if successful at the conclusion of a trial. This is particularly true where
20
the relief afforded, rather than preserving the status quo, completely changes it."
21
Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 808-09 (9th Cir. 1963).
22
eNS's requested injunction would require all the same changes to Ventura Superior
23
Court's internal operations and processing procedures-and
24
its budget and already-stretched resources-as
25
judgment on the merits. And Ventura Superior Court's ability to resume its prior
26'
operations following CNS's defeat on the merits only would cost the court more.
27
all the same strains on
would be required from an (unlikely)
eNS's requested injunction is disfavored and subject to heightened scrutiny.
28
_ 11 _
Deft's Opp, to Plfs Mot. for Prelim.lnj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER32
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN
1
B.
2
3
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:520
Page 19 of 30 Page 10
CNS Cannot Succeed On The Merits.
CNS Does Not Have a Right to "Same-Day Access."
1.
For all the same reasons that eNS fails to even state a claim as a matter of law
4
(see Deft's Mot. to Dismiss at 18-23}-that
5
federal common law right to "same-day access" to court records-CNS
6
succeed on such claim as well.
7
is, because there is no constitutional
eNS does not cite a single, published decision establishing
or
is unlikely to
a right of "same-
8
day access" to court records.
9
U.S. 555, 579-81, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980), the Supreme Court first
Indeed, in Richmond Newspapers,
10
held that the First Amendment
11
right of access to criminal court proceedings.
12
extended to civil filings.
13
Transit Auth., 652 F.3d 247,250-51
14
CaL App. 4th 1045, 1052-53, 1060-62,37
15
Inc. v. Virginia, 448
afforded the press and public an affirmative,
qualified
That qualified right has since been
See, e.g., New York Civil Liberties
Union v. New York City
(2d Cir. 2011); In re Marriage of Burkle, 135
Cal. Rptr. 3d 805 (2006).
In determining whether such a right exists, the Court identified two related
16
criteria, which it later termed "considerations
17
the place and process have historically
18
(i.e., "experience");
19
the functioning
20
Co. v. Superior Court, 478 US 1,8, 106 S. Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986) (Press-
21
Enterprise
22
been open to the press and general public
and (2) whether public access plays a significant positive role in
of the particular process in question (i.e., "logic").
Press-Enterprise
II). eNS cannot satisfy either criteria ..
"Experience" fails to demonstrate a right to "same-day
access."
a.
23
24
of experience and logic:" (1) whether
For the "experience"
inquiry, CNS's purports to establish "a longstanding
25
tradition"
26
concerning the public's
27
records.
28
Cir. 2006); In re NVIDIA Corp., Case No. C 06--06110 SBA, 2008 WL 1859067
of "same-day
See Kamakana
access" to new complaints,
by citing a handful of decisions
access rights in the context of motions to seal or unseal
v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F 3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th
_ 12 _
* 1,
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER33
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:521
Page 20 of 30 Page ID
1
**2-4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Vassiliades v. Israely, 714 F. Supp. 604,606 (D. Conn.
2
1989). Although those courts acknowledged a general right of access to those
3
records (a point Ventura Superior Court does not dispute), those courts in no way
4
addressed whether such access must occur the same day the documents are filed.
5
CNS next resorts to an unpublished Texas decision where eNS successfully
6
obtained the kind of preliminary injunctive relief it seeks here. Courthouse News
7
Service v. Jackson, No. H-09-1844, 2009 WL 2163609 1, **2-5,38 Media L. Rep.
8
1890 (S.D. Tex. July 20, 2009). Yet, for the same reasons discussed here, the
9
reasoning of that decision lacks rational support: None of the authority on which that
10
district court relied actually held-c-or even considered whether-a
11
right to "same-day access" of newly filed civil complaints exists. At most, the
12
court's discussion of a First Amendment right of access confirms general principles
13
of reasonable access in criminal and civil cases. See id. at **3-4.
14
First Amendment
CNS lastly attempts to construct a "tradition" of "same-day access" to court
15
records from a sampling of courts that extend to it the courtesy of providing "same-
16
day access" to new complaints. (Mot. at 2-4; Girdner Decl. Ex. 3.) CNS identifies
17
courts in only 23 of the 50 states where it is allegedly provided "same-day access" to
18
new civil complaints. (Girdner Decl. Ex. 3.) And within California, CNS alleges the
19
courtesy of "same-day access" at only seven of approximately 532 court locations
20
within California's 58 counties.' (Id at 23,25,27,29-31.)
21
Card Summary" only underscores the lack of any such "tradition." (Dalton-Koch
22
Decl., Ex. A.) There simply is no "tradition" of "same-day access" in California.
23
h.
Indeed, CNS's "Report
24
"Logic" fails to demonstrate a right to "same-da
access."
25
Nor does the "logic" component of the First Amendment analysis recognize a
26
right of "same-day access" to court records. CNS suggests that local court
27
considerations-including
28
and priorities of other court business-must
budget constraints, court caseloads, personnel capacities,
_13 _
bow to the "newsworthiness" of newly
Deft's Opp. to PIf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R(MANx)
FER34
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:522
-MAN
Page 21 of 30 Page 10
1
filed unlimited civil complaints
in the short window between when they are received
2
by the court for processing
3
contemporaneous
4
news reports, even in the criminal context.
5
119 (5th Cir. 1987) ("The value served by the first amendment right of access is in
6
its guarantee of a public watch to guard against arbitrary, overreaching,
7
corrupt action by participants
8
an impropriety,
9
when such news is not reported contemporaneously
and then filed. (Mot. at 15-16.) But the lack of
news reporting does not itself diminish the significance
of the
United States v. Edwards, 823 F.2d 111,
in judicial proceedings.
or even
Any serious indication of such
WOUld,we believe, receive significant exposure in the media, even
10
even where the Supreme Court historically
11
been no recognized right of "same-day
with the suspect event. "). Thus,
has been the most protective, there has
access" to such records.
12
eNS attempts derive "logic" supporting a "same-day access" right from its
13
claim that any delay in access to public records is the functional equivalent of an
14
outright denial of access to those records.
15
all inapposite--it
16
proceedings,"
not at issue here, or has nothing to do with the public right of access
17
whatsoever.'
Indeed, in United States v. Simone, 14 F.3d 833, 842 (3d Cir. 1994),
18
where the Third Circuit rejected the later release of a transcript as a permissible
19
3 See Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 895, 897
(7th Cir. 1994) (considering journalists' motion to intervene to vacate seal of entire
court file and to modify 'protective order); Globe v. Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868
F.2d 497,502-07 (1st Clf. 1989) (challenging state sealing statute automatically
sealing records of cases ending III acquittal or a finding of no probable cause); Estate
a/Hearst, 67 Cal. App. 3d 777, 784-86 (1977) (considering propriety of probate
court order vacating prior sealing order).
4 See United States v. Simone, 14 F .3d 833,842
(3d Cir. 1994) (holding release
of transcript following exclusion of news media from criminal proceedings
inadequate substitute given right of access to attend judicial proceedings); In re
Charlotte Observer, R82 F.2d-S50, 852-56 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding unconstitutional
trial court's hearing closure for change of venue determination).
5 See Nebraska Press Ass 'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 556-61, 96 S. Ct. 2791, 49
L. Ed. 2d 683 (1976) (considering whether order restraining media from publishing
or broadcasting accounts of confessions or admission made by the accused
constituted impermissible prior restraint on speech); Chicago Council of Lawyers v.
Bauer, 522 F.2d 242,247-30 (7th Cir. 1975) (analyzing whether restrictions on
speech amounted to a prior restraint).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Mot. at 14-16.) But CNS's authority is
involves either blanket restrictions
-14 _
on access to records' or
Deft's Opp, to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. lnj.
CeseNo. CV 1l~08083 R(MANx)
FER35
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:523
Page 22 of 30 Page ID
1
substitute for the media'S right to be present at a judicial hearing, the court
2
nevertheless stated,
3
and the release of the transcript had very little effect on the value of the information
4
as news." (Emphasis added.) Thus, neither Simone nor any other ofCNS's cases
5
establish a constitutional or common law right to "same-day access.?"
6
2.
7
8
9
"Iwl» do not
doubt that the ten day interval between the hearing
eNS Has Only A Right To Reasonable Access, Which eNS
Already Receives.
Starting from the flawed premise that it has a right to "same-day access" to
begin with, eNS seeks to impose a "stringent three-part test" that Ventura Superior
10
Court must satisfy to "overcome" that "right.'; (Mot, at 16-17 (relying on United
11
States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162, 1168-69 (9th CiT. 1982) and its progeny).)
12
CNS's entire analysis is inapposite.
13
As discussed, there is no right to "same-day access," and none of the
14
additional cases cited by eNS that invoke this three-part test suggest otherwise.
15
They all concern instances where courts have made specific orders directed at a
16
particular hearing, transcript or filing for the purpose of sealing the record or closing
17
off access to the public--entirely
18
us. Dist.
19
conducted during jury deliberations in a criminal trial); Associated Press v. Us. Dist.
20
Ct., 705 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1983) (order requiring filings in a particular criminal
21
case to be filed in camera with 48-hour window for objections prior to sealing
22
determination); United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1982) (orders
23
closing various hearings and refusing release of in camera proceedings prior to close
24
of criminal trial).
or indefinitely. See Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v.
Ct., 156 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 1998) (order sealing transcripts of hearings
25
26
27
28
6 eNS's alternative reliance on the "serious questions" standard for injunctive
relief fares no better than its claim of likely success. There are no serious questions
on this issue, and eNS still cannot satisfy the other three factors. See Alliance for
the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cit. 2011).
_ 15 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R(MANx)
FER36
ase 2:11-cv-OB083-R
-MAN
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:524
Page 23 of 30
Page 10
1
Neither situation is implicated here. Ventura Superior Court's "policy" of
2
processing new complaints prior to making them available to the public does not
3
target any particular case or subject matter, or withhold documents from any
4
particular group; it does not delay access for a set period of time, if at all. In fact, its
5
"policy" is to process all new complaints as promptly as its resources will allow, and
6
to give the public access immediately thereafter. And overwhelmingly that "policy"
7
provides reasonable access, or next-day access, if not "same-day access." (See
8
Camacho Decl. tjftjf 4-22.)
9
This is all the law requires. Cal. Gov't Code § 68150(l)~ see also CaL Rs. Ct.
10
2.500(a), 2.503(a); Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. at 581 n.18
11
(acknowledging "reasonable limitations" may be placed on public's access to
12
criminal trial); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct., 457 U.S. 596,607 n.17 (1982).
13
14
15
C.
CNS Cannot Demonstrate A "Real And Concrete" Harm Much
Less Irreparable Harm.
To obtain the mandatory injunctive relief it seeks, CNS must demonstrate
16
irreparable harm that is not just hypothesized, but is "real and concrete." Los
17
Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 634 F.2d
18
1197, 1201-1202 (9th Cir. 1980). CNS cannot meet that burden.
19
20
21
1.
CNS Cannot Avail Itself Of Any Presumed Harm Derived
Under Inapposite Freedom Of Expression Cases.
eNS relies on a host of inapposite authorities for the unsupportable
22
proposition that any delay in access to newly filed unlimited civil complaints
23
constitutes irreparable harm. All the cases cited by eNS, however, involve harm
24
caused by restraint on the freedom of expression or speech, not restraint on access to
25
court records. See, e.g., Elrod v. Bums, 427 U.S. 347.357 (1976) (freedom of belief
26
and association);
27
press); Carroll v. President & Com'rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968) ("The
28
elimination of prior restraint was a 'leading purpose' in the adoption ofthe First
New York Times Co. v. Us., 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) (freedom of
_ 16 _
Deft's Opp, to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj,
Case No. CV 11·08083 R (MANx)
FER37
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:525
Page 24 of 30
Page ID
1
Amendment."); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375,376 (1962) (freedom to publish
2
"thoughts and opinions"); Jacobsen v. Us. Postal Service, 812 F .2d 1151, 1154 (9th
3
Cir. 1987) (involving vendor's freedom to sell newspapers in public forum).
4
There is an important distinction between freedom of expression cases and
5
those involving access to information; both of them are rooted in First Amendment
6
principles, but they have developed along distinctly different lines. See Houchins v.
7
KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1,9-10 (1978) (distinguishing right to access information
8
cases from First Amendment cases where courts are "concerned with the freedom of
9
the media to communicate information once it is obtained"). Thus, although eNS
10
attempts to conflate the two, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that
11
they are not intrinsically linked:
12
There are few restrictions on action which could not be
clothed by ingenious argument in the garb of decreased
data flow. For example, the prohibition of unauthorized
entry into the White House diminishes the citizen's
opportunities to gather information he might find relevant
to his opinion of the way the country is being run, but that
does not make entry into the White House a First
Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
carry with it the unrestrained
right to gather information.
ld. at 12 (internal quotations omitted and emphasis added); see also SHA.R.K. v.
Metro Parks Serving Summit County, 499 F.3d 553, 559-560 (6th Cir. 2007).
For this reason, CNS's reliance on the "precious First Amendment right of
freedom of press" in Jacobsen (Mot. at 22) to demonstrate irreparable harm here-
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which concerns, at most, the right to "gather information'v=is misplaced. Whiteland
Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland,
193 F.3d 177, 183 (3rd Cir. 1999)
(stating forum analysis inapplicable to resolve restrictions on right of access);
Westmoreland
v, Columbia Broadcasting
Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16,21-22 (2d Cir.
1984) (calling forum analysis "inapposite" to access to courtroom cases); see also
Houchins,
438 U.S. at 10 (holding news organizations hold no greater "access to
~17 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj,
Case No. CV 11~08083 R (MANx)
FER38
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
1
government
2
not support recognition
3
presumption
4
Page 25 of 30 Page 10
existent right.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:526
eNS's
28
violation of that non-
CNS's Alleged Loss Of Goodwill Is Hypothetical, At Best.
effort to demonstrate
Amendment
irreparable
harm "as a matter of law because the
bars [CNS] from seeking monetary damages" for its alleged
loss of goodwill (Mot. at 22) fares no better.
The inability to recover money
damages does not alone establish irreparable
harm. See Los Angeles Memorial
Coliseum Comm 'n, 634 F .2d at 1202 (reversing injunction where proponent failed to
establish both irreparable
demonstrate
harm and inadequacy
of legal remedies).
CNS still must
that its alleged injury to goodwill is concrete and real. It has not done
so; in fact, its own pleadings
demonstrate
(See Mot. at 22 ("Prolonged
delays in access will diminish the value of its reports to
its subscribers,
that such harm is hypothetical,
at best.
leading to a loss of goodwill.") (emphasis added); see also Compl. ~
39; Girdner Deci. ~ 28.)
CNS does not allege or attest that any subscriber actually has questioned
the
value of its reports; it does not allege or attest that it has actually lost any
subscribers;
it also does not allege or attest that it has lost out on an opportunity
timely report an event. eNS's
fail to demonstrate
theoretical
to
and conclusory claims ofloss to goodwill
a real and concrete harm, much less an irreparable
one. See
Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256, 1264 (lOt
Cir. 2004) (reversing issuance of preliminary
injunction where requesting party
failed to establish irreparable harm solely by alleging breach of contract).
D.
26
27
The cases do
access" to court records, much less a
of a right to "same-day
of irreparable harm resulting from a purportedly
2.
Eleventh
beyond that open to the public generally").
No Clear Showin That The Balance Of E uities Ti s In Favor 0
eNS.
eNS purports to show that the balance of equities tips in its favor by making
the incredible
claim that Ventura Superior Court "will suffer no injury."
_ 18 _
(Mot. at
Deft's Opp. to Plfs Mot. for Prelim. Inj,
Case No. CV L1-08083 R (MANx)
FER39
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:527
Page 26 of 30 Page 10
1
23.) Nothing could be farther from the truth. As a matter of finance, Ventura
2
Superior Court cannot gather additional resources to address CNS's concerns-there
3
simply is no money available. (Shennan Decl. ~~ 12-15.) In fact, the budgetary
4
shortfall anticipated for the next fiscal year is so great that even depletion of every
5
last penny of Ventura Superior Court's reserve fund ($4.3 million), combined with
6
use of every last penny of the only other local funding source ($2.7 million), will still
7
leave a shortfall of$5.2 million. (Id. ~ 14.) As a result, Ventura Superior Court will
8
have no choice but to cut additional staff resources or further reduce court hours (id.
9
~ 15)--either of which only will be exacerbated by an order requiring it to provide
10
11
"same-day access" to every unlimited civil complaint.
As practical matter, Ventura Superior Court cannot, even with unlimited
12
resources, guarantee "same-day access." As described above, the timing of
13
"dropped" filings, the need for immediate assignment to judicial officers, and the
14
need to ensure quality control over the processing of new complaints all make it
15
impossible to guarantee "same-day access." (Kanatzar Decl. ~~ 31-34.) eNS's
16
suggestion that its reporters simply could be let "behind the counter" likewise is
17
unworkable. It puts court staff in an increased security risk, it violates the
18
confidentiality of litigants' privacy interests, and it violates the strict accounting
19
protocols to which Ventura Superior Court must adhere. (Id. ~~ 35-39.)
20
By contrast, CNS is the only news outlet that seeks regular access-much
less
21
"same-day access"-to
Ventura Superior Court's new complaints. (Id. ~ 18.)
22
Requests are only infrequently received from other reporters. and reasonable access
23
is provided without any objection from the reporters. (Id.) Merely asking whether
24
the equities of a demanding news outlet seeking an unsupported right to "same-day
25
access" to court records should trump the equities of a cash- and resource-strapped
26
court doing its best under the circumstances to provide reasonable access-and
27
achieving same- or next-day access-seems
often
to answer the question. The balance of
28
_19 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj,
Case No, CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER40
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:528
Page 27 of 30 Page 10
1
equities here tips sharply in Ventura Superior Court's favor and compels denial of
2
eNS's
3
requested mandatory
E.
eNS's Requested Injunction Will Not Serve The Public Interest;
If Anything, It Will Harm It.
4
5
injunction.
The Supreme Court has properly cautioned that "courts of equity should pay
6
particular regard for the public consequences
7
of injunctions."
8
although various courts have recognized a strong public interest in upholding First
9
Amendment
in employing the extraordinary
remedy
Winter, 555 U.S. at 377 (quotations and citation omitted). And
principles, that interest is recognized
only infreedom of expression
10
cases, as CNS's own authority demonstrates.
11
F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir, 2009) ("The ordinance [which restricts leafleting] thus
12
infringes on the free speech rights not only of Klein, but also of anyone seeking to
13
express their views in this manner in the City of San Clemente.");
14
Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Ct. r In and For Cnty. of Carson City, 303 F.3d
15
959,974
16
freedom of expression
17
interest on which CNS relies simply is not implicated here."
18
(9th Cir. 2002) (summarizing
Klein v, City of San Clemente, 584
other circuit cases recognizing
right in
cases). This is not a freedom of expression case; the public
Even if it were, that public interest is not absolute and can be overcome
19
"where the First Amendment
20
entirely eliminated."
21
circumstance
22
unlimited civil complaints
23
interests that would be incurred by granting the mandatory
24
see also
activities of the public are only limited, rather than
Sammartano, 303 F.3d at 974. That is precisely the
here: eNS faces a very limited delay (if any) in access to newly filed
To start, eNS's
that must bow to the severe harm to various other public
requested mandatory
injunction CNS seeks.
injunction would harm the overall
25
administration
26
7 eNS attempts to create an "even more pronounced"
public interest in access
cases by noting "the press serves as the surrogate of the public." (Mot. at 23.) This
is anon-starter.
The J2!"esshas no greater right to access than any other member of
the public. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,98 S. Ct. 130655
L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978)
27
28
of justice in Ventura Superior Court insofar as vital personnel
_20 _
Deft's Opp. to PIPs Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER41
ase2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document25
Filed 10/31/11
#:529
Page28of30
PagelD
1
resources would need to be diverted from other areas of the court's judicial
2
administration
3
staff to accommodate
4
department
5
operate on less than full staffing capacity.
6
every department
7
Ventura Superior Court to pull resources from those other departments
8
accommodate
9
interests of every other member of the public, but it also will necessarily
10
system. There is absolutely no funding available to hire additional
eNS's
request.
(Sherman Decl.,-r 15.) Indeed, each and every
of Ventura Superior Court has been forced through budget cuts to
(See id. ~ 5.) That means that each and
already needs more resources that it presently has. To require
CNS' s request not only will put CNS' s interests improperly
negatively impact the administration
in the court system.
above the
and
of justice in those departments.
Moreover, CNS's requested mandatory
11
to
12
confidence
13
day access"--either
14
partial processing
15
of processing
16
Documents
17
might be lost, stolen, or misfiled.
18
injunction would harm the public's
Requiring Ventura Superior Court to provide "same-
to handle responsibly the materials it is given.
through rushed processing
of those complaintsv=-would
errors and with no possibility
might be misplaced;
dramatically
of quality control.
or through
increase the likelihood
(Kanatzar Decl. ~ 34.)
file numbers might be mistakenly switched; funds
(Jd.) If nothing else, the public expects its courts
Likewise, CNS's requested mandatory
19
of newly filed complaints,
injunction would harm individual
20
litigants'
21
Court.
22
yet filed complaints to avoid any burden on court staffing resources.
23
~ 1; Mot. at 3; Gardner Decl, ~ 22.) But Ventura Superior Court has an obligation to
24
its litigants to ensure that confidential
25
and fee waiver requests-remain
26
8 eNS alleges that in June 2009, Ventura Superior Court agreed to make newly
filed complaints available "after some processing out before the complaint had been
fully processed .... " (Compl, ~ 24.) That is untrue. For the very same reasons
articulated here, Ventura Superior Court never agreed to provide eNS with partially
processed complaints. (Kanatzar Dec1. " 21.)
27
28
interests in having their documents properly managed by Ventura Superior
eNS suggests it could have "behind the counter" access to received but not
information-including
confidential.
_21
R
(See CompI.
name change petitions
(Kanatzar Decl. ,-r37.) Similarly,
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER42
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:530
1
new filings often are accompanied
2
check.
3
procedures
4
access behind the clerk's counter would compromise
5
Page 29 of 30 Page 10
procedures.
6
by filings fees, which usually come by cash or
(Id. ~ 38.) Those funds are subject to strict cash handling and audit
designed to ensure that litigants'
Finally, CNS's requested mandatory
7
that puts Ventura Superior Court-and
8
the nation-at
9
determination of what is "newsworthy"
the mercy ofCNS's
monies remain secure. (Id.) Allowing
these established security
injunction would create a slippery slope
potentially
ever-changing
every other court in the state and
business plan. CNS admits that its
is governed entirely by eNS's
0\\'11
(See Compl, ~ 15; Krolak Decl. ~ 3.) Right now eNS seeks access to
10
preferences.
11
only new civil unlimited complaints now; it may later determine (in its sole
12
discretion)
13
day access" to those. Indeed, at some point, eNS may contend that "same-day
14
access" is no longer sufficient; it must be "within the hour" access. All these harms
15
to the public interest will only be magnified
16
u,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(id.), and may seek "same-
that other types of filings are "newsworthy"
and compounded.
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, A BOND IS REQUIRED.
There are important reasons why Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure
restraining
provides that a "court may issue a preliminary
order only
if the
injunction or a temporary
movant gives security in an amount that the court
considers proper" (emphasis added), and that it may be reversible error to issue an
injunction without such security.
F.3d 411,421
Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174
(4th Cir. 1999).
None of eNS's cases support a nominal bond-much
less a waived bond-
here. Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1126 (9th Cir. 2005)
(affirming injunction with $50,000 bond); Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906,919
(9th Cir. 2003) (affirming injunction without additional bond where the funds at
issue in the injunction were held in sequestration
by the court); Tradition Club
28
_ 22 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER43
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 25 Filed 10/31/11
#:531
Page 30 of 30
Page ID
1
Assocs., LLC v. Tradition Golf Club, No. EDCV 08-1581, 2008 WL 5352927 at *6
2
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2008) (ordering $2500 bond even where enjoined party "state[ d]
3
it will suffer little injury, if any at all, from the entry of an injunction,"
4
still ordered a $2500 bond); Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City. 305 F. Supp.
5
2d 1022, 1043-44 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (waiving bond in case of quintessential
6
of free speech where "City has not pointed to any evidence supporting a contention
7
that the City will suffer compensable
8
ordinances are improvidently
9
Moreover,
economic 'secondary
and the court
censure
effects' if its amended
enjoined"),"
as detailed above, the mandatory injunctive relief eNS seeks will
10
result in substantial
financial and practical harm to Ventura Superior Court. To
11
comply, and not otherwise harmfully affect the administration
12
litigants, Ventura Superior Court would be compelled to increase its staff resources
13
at a time when budget constraints have forced it to cut them. Thus, if the Court were
14
to issue such an injunction, a sizeable bond should be required.
CONCLUSION
15
16
17
of justice to its
eNS's Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be denied.
Dated:
18
October 31,2011
Respectfully
submitted,
JONES DAY
19
20
By: lsi Robert A. Naeve
Robert A. Naeve
21
Attorneys for Defendant
MICHAEL PLANET, IN IDS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS COURT EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/CLERK
OF THE VENTURA
COUNTYSUPEruORCOURT
22
23
24
LAI-3152540
25
26
27
28
9 eNS citation to the unpublished Texas decision it procured a couple years
ago does not lustify a nominal or waived bond here, either. Jackson, 200'9 WL
2163609 at >I< 2-5. There, the court ordered a $1000 bond without any discussion of
the relevant authorities or facts. Id. Much like the rest of that opinion, the court's
order on this point is not persuasive authority.
_23 _
Deft's Opp. to Plf's Mot. for Prelim. lnj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER44
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
:11-cv-Oa083-R -MAN
Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:395
Robert A. Naeve (State Bar No. 106095)
rnaeve@jonesday.com
Erica L. Reilley (State Bar No. 211615)
eJreilley@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 851-3939
Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
Attorneys for Defendant
l\.1ICHAEL PLANET, IN ins OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS COURT EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/CLERK
OF THE VENTURA
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
11
CENJRAL
12
DISTRICT
COURT
OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
COURTHOUSE
15
16
17
18
19
NEWS SERVICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
R (MANx)
Assigned for all purposes to
Hon. Manuel L. Real
MEMORANDUM
MICHAEL PLANET, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COURT
EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF
THE VENTURA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT,
20
21
Case No. CVI1-08083
OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES
iN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND
ABSTAIN
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
November 21.2011
10:00 a.m.
8
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER45
Case
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 21
1
Filed 10/20/11
Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:396
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
3
INnODUCTION
1
4
FACTUAL
2
5
BACKGROUND
A.
6
California Law Grants To All Members Of The Public,
Including The Press, The Right Of "Reasonable Access" To
Documents Filed In California's Courts
2
CNS Insisted That The Ventura Superior Court's Clerk's Office
Provide "Same-Day Access" To Newly Filed Civil Unlimited
Complaints
"
3
CNS's Complaint Asks This Court To Create Constitutional
And Common-Law Rights To "Same-Day Access" To
Unlimited Civil Complaints, Except As Deemed Permissible
Following A "Case-By-Case" Adjudication Of Individual
Claims
6
What CNS's Complaint Fails To Allege
7
7
B.
8
9
C.
10
11
12
13
D.
14
1.
15
CNS Sponsored SB 326 -A Bill That Would Provide
The Precise Relief eNS Seeks Here
8
9
16
2.
Ventura Superior Court Is Not An Electronic Filing Court
17
3.
CNS Has Not Attempted To Seek Appropriate
State Court
18
19
ARGUMENT
20
I.
Relief In
21
10
10
TIllS COURT SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM HEARING TIDS CASE. ...... I0
A.
This Court Should Equitably Abstain From Hearing This Matter
Pursuant To O'Shea v. Littleton
11
22
1.
23
24
2.
25
26
27
B.
CNS's Complaint Seeks The Exact Sort of Intervention
With State Judicial Administration That 0 'Shea
Condenms
13
eNS's Current Legislative Attempts For Relief
Underscore The Wisdom In This Court's Abstention
14
This Court Should Abstain From Hearing This Matter Pursuant
To Railroad Comm 'n of Texas v. Pullman Co
15
28
-1 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11-08083 R(MANx)
FER46
Case
1
:11-cv-08083-R
II.
-MAN
Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 3 of 32 Page 10 #:397
3
CNS'S FIRST AND SECOND CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FAIL TO
STATE A CLAIM FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL
OR FEDERAL
COMMON LAW "RIGHT" OF SAME-DAY ACCESS TO NEWLY
FILED UNLIMITED CIVIL COIvfPLAINTS
4
A.
2
The First Claim For Relief Should Be Dismissed Because The
First Amendment Does Not Guarantee Same-Day Access
18
19
5
First Amendment Public Rights Of Access To Court
Records Are Governed By "Experience And Logic."
19
8
Historic "Experience" Does Not Recognize A Right To
Same-Day Access To Court Records
19
9
a.
There Is No Historic Right To Same-Day Access
As A Matter OfLaw
19
The Courtesies Extended To CNS By Some Courts
Does Not Otherwise Establish An Historic Right
To Same-Day Access
21
1.
6
7
2.
10
b.
11
12
3.
13
14
B.
15
16
17
18
III.
"Logic" Does Not Recognize A Right To Same-Day
Access, Either.
The Second Claim For Relief Should Be Dismissed Because
Federal Common Law Does Not Guarantee Same-Day Access
TIlE ELEVENIH AMENDl\.1ENT BARS eNS'S THIRD CLAIM
FOR RELIEF FOR vrOLATION OF CALIFORNIA RULE OF
COURT 2.550
CONCLUSION
21
23
24
25
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11-080&3 R(MANx)
FER47
Case :11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
1
Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 4 of 32
Page 10 #:398
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
3
Cases
4
5
Ad Hoc Comm. on Judicial Admin. v. Massachusetts, 488 F .2d
1241 (1st Cir. 1973)
12
6
Almodovar v. Reiner, 832 F.2d 1138 (9th Cir. 1987)
17
7
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)
8
Cal. Mother Infant Program v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs., 41 F. Supp.
9
2d 1123 (S.D. Cal. 1999)
7
24
10
Canton v. Spokane Sch. Dist. # 81,498 F.2d 840 (9th Cit. 1974)
16
11
Cent. Reserve Life ofN Am. Ins. Co. v. Struve, 852 F.2d 1158
(9th Cir. 1988)
24
13
Cleveland Ed. ofEduc. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S. Ct.
1487,84 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1985)
22
14
County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 3 L.
12
15
Ed. 2d 1163, 79 S. Ct. 1060 (1958)
16
16
C-Y Dev. Co. v. Redlands, 703 F.2d 375 (9th CiT. 1983)
18
17
Durning v. Citibank, NA., 950 F.2d 1422 (9th Cir. 1991)
24
18,
E. T. v. Cantil-Sakauye, No. 10-15248 (9th Cir. Sept. 13,2011)
12
19
E.T v. George, 681 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
12
20
Estate of Hearst, 67 Cal.App.3d 777, 136 Cal. Rptr. 821 (1977)
21
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968)
11
23
Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S. Ct. 2898,
61 L. Ed. 2d 608 (1979)
20
24
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.
22
25
26
27
28
2
Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982)
19
Greater L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F .2d 1103
(9th Cir.1987)
24
Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 104 S. Ct. 2321,
81 L. Ed. 2d 186 (1984)
-111 -
16
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11-08083 R(MANx)
FER48
Case
:11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 5 of 32 Page 10 #:399
1
Hibernia Savings and Loan Soc. v. Boyd, 155 Cal. 193, 100 P. 239 (1909)
2
Horne v. Flores, 129 S. Ct. 2579, 174 L. Ed. 2d 406 , 557 U.S.
3
_
(2009)
2
11
4
Hughes v. Lipscher, 906 F.2d 961 (3d Cir. 1990)
5
In re Marriage of Burkle, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 37 Cal. Rptr.
3d 805 (2006)
17
20
6
7
8
9
in re Marriage of Mosley, 190 Cal. App. 4th 1096, 82 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 497 (2010)
3
In re Marriage a/Nicholas, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1566, 113 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 629 (2010)
2
10
Kaufman v. Kaye, 466 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2006)
11
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 87 L. Ed.
12
13
14
15
16
14
2d 114 (1985)
24
Los Angeles Cnty. Bar Ass 'n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1992)
12
Los Angeles v, Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S. Ct. 1660,75 L. Ed. 2d
675 (1983)
10
Lucien v. Johnson, 61 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 1995)
22
Luckey v. Miller, 976 F.2d 673 (11th Cir. 1992)
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 115 S. Ct. 2038, 132 L. Ed.
2d 63 (1995)
10
Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F 3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009)
7
NBC Subsidiary (KNBC- TV) v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th
1178,86
Cal. Rptr. 2d 778 (1999)
2
New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Auth.,
652 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2011)
20
Nixon v. Wamer Communications, Inc .• 435 U.S. 589, 98 S. Ct.
130655 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978)
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488,94
4
S. Ct. 669, 38 L. Ed. 2d
674 (1974)
11
Parker v. Turner, 626 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1980)
12
28
-IV
-
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11·08083 R (MANx)
FER49
Case :11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 21
1
Filed 10/20/11
Page 6 of 32 Page 1D #:400
Pearl Investment Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 774 F.2d
1460 (9th Cir. 1985). cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1170 (1986)
16
Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Helderman, 465 U.S. 89,
104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1984)
25
. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 104 S.
Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984)
19
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 US 1, 106 S. Ct.
2735,92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986)
19
Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496,61 S. Ct.
643, 85 L. Ed. 971 (1941)
16
10
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.
Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980)
19
11
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,96 S. Ct. 598,46 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1976)
11
12
Rushford v. New Yorker Mag., 846 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1988)
20
13
Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156
(9th Cir. 2003)
25
Smelt v. County ojOrange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 549 U.S. 959 (2006)
16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
14
15
16
17
18
United States v. Edwards, 823 F:2d 111 (5th Cir. 1987)
Willv. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,109 S. Ct.
2304, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1988)
_
22
__
24
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-v -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11-08083 R(MANx)
FER50
Case
:11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 21
Filed 10120/11
Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:401
1
Statutes
2
42 U.S.C. § 1983
6
3
CaL Civ. Proc. Code § 1904
3
CaL Gov't Code § 68150(c)
3
Cal. Gov't Code § 68150(1)
3
Cal. Gov't Code § 68151(a)(1)
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cal. Gov't Code § 811.9
25
9
10
11
Other Authorities
9th Cir. Gen. Order 5.5( d)
12
12
13
Rules
14
Cal. R. Ct. 2.400(a)
3
15
Cal. R. Ct. 2.500(a)
3
16
Cal. R Ct. 2.503(a)
3
17
Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(c)
3
18
19
Constitutional Provisions
20
U.S. Const., Art. TIl, §§ 1,2
10
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-VI
-
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11·08083 R(MANx)
FER51
Case
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Filed 10/20/11
Page 8 of 32
Page ID #:402
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Courthouse News Service ("eNS"),
a purportedly
widely read legal
news wire service, seeks broad declaratory
and injunctive relief against Michael D.
Planet, in his official capacity as Executive
Officer and Clerk of the Superior Court
of California,
County of Ventura (":Mr. Planet" or the "Ventura Superior Court").
The gravamen of CNS's lawsuit rests on the misplaced notion that it has a
constitutional or common law right to "same-day
unlimited
civil complaints.
reporter's
ability to review a newly filed complaint necessarily
[CNS's]
Specifically,
access" to all newly filed
eNS complains that "any delay in the
creates delay in
ability to inform interested persons of the factual and legal allegations
those complaints
that purportedly
.... " (CompI., ~ 18 (emphasis added).)
in
CNS further complains
increasing access delays at Ventura Superior Court, and an alleged
"policy" that CNS (and every other member of the public) cannot have access to
new filings at that court until the requisite document processing
is completed has
resulted in new filings being "as good as sealed," in violation of the First and
Fourteenth
Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution,
federal common law, and the
California Rules of Court. (Id., ~ 6.) Thus, eNS wants nearly instantaneous
access
to all newly filed unlimited civil complaints.
CNS can cite to no case holding that the First Amendment
agency's
right to "same-day
access" to newly filed complaints.
protects a news
Instead, it claims
that because certain other courts are able to extend the courtesy of "same-day
access", this Court should make such access a constitutional
does not countenance
such a decree, and for good reason. First, eNS's
thisfederal district court involve itself in the administration
system runs afoul of settled principles of federalism,
competence-all
mandate.
But the law
request that
of the state's judicial
comity, and institutional
of which urge this Court to exercise its discretion to abstain from
hearing the matter at all. Second, CNS's first and second claims for relief for
28
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and Abstain
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (JIAANx)
FER52
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:403
violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and federal
common law fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as there simply
is no constitutional or common-law right to "same-day access" to newly filed
unlimited civil complaints. Third, CNS's third claim for relief, which alleges that
the Ventura Superior Court violates California Rule of Court 2.550, runs afoul of
the Eleventh Amendment, and is barred. Ventura Superior Court's motion should
be granted, and the entire action should be dismissed accordingly.
8
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9
10
11
12
A.
California Law Grants To All Members Of The Public, Including
The Press, The Right Of "Reasonable Access" To Documents Filed
In California's Courts.
It has long been settled in California that members of the public have a right
13
of access to "adjudicative proceedings and filed documents of trial and appellate
14
courts." NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TVJ v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1212, 86
15
Cal. Rptr. 2d 778 (1999). This is because "the public has an interest, in all civil
16
cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system ...
17
." ld. at 1210; see also Hibernia Savings and Loan Soc. v. Boyd, 155 Cal. 193,200,
18
100 P. 239 (1909) ("Ajudicial record is a public writing .... "); In re Marriage of
19
Nicholas, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1566, 1575, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 629 (2010) ("A strong
20
presumption exists in favor of public access to court records in ordinary civil
21
trials"); Estate of Hearst, 67 Cal.App.3d 777, 784, 136 Cal. Rptr. 821 (1977)
22
("[T]he public has a legitimate interest in access to public records, such as court
23
documents.").
24
The California Legislature codified this right of access in Government Code
25
section 68150. In particular, the Legislature mandated in section 68150(1) that,
26
"[ujnless access is otherwise restricted by law," court records of all types, including
27
paper and electronic, "shall be made reasonably accessible to all members of the
28
public for viewing and duplication as the paper records would have been
_2 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11·08083 R (MANx)
FER53
.Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 10 of 32 Page ID
#:404
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
accessible." Cal. Gov't Code § 68150(1) (emphasis added). Significantly, this right
of "reasonable access" extends to documents only after they have been "filed ... in
the case folder, but if no case folder is created by the court, all filed papers and
documents that would have been in the case folder if one had been created." Cal.
Gov't Code § 68151(a)(1); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1904 (defining "judicial
record").
The Legislature directed the Judicial Council of California to "adopt rules to
establish the standards or guidelines for the creation, maintenance, reproduction, or
preservation of court records ... ." Cal. Gov't Code § 68150(c). The Judicial
Council complied with the Legislature's directive by adopting Title 2, Division 4 of
the Rules of Court relating to maintenance of and access to trial court records. As
is relevant to these proceedings, Rule of Court 2.400(a) provides that, "Only the
clerk may remove and replace records in the court's files," and that, "[u]nless
otherwise provided by these rules or ordered by the court, court records may only
be inspected by the public in the office of the clerk." Cal. R. Ct. 2.400(a). The
Rules of Court further acknowledge that "[u]nless confidentiality is required by
law, court records are presumed to be open," Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(c), and that the
public has a right of "reasonable access" to them. E.g., Cal. RE. Ct. 2.500(a),
2.503( a). See generally In re Marriage of Mosley, 190 Cal. App. 4th 1096~ 110203, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 497 (2010).
21
22
23
B.
CNS Insisted That The Ventura Superior Court's Clerk's Office
Provide "Same-Day Access" To Newly Filed Civil Unlimited
Complaints.
24
eNS claims to be "a widely-read legal news wire service with thousands of
25
subscribers across the nation .... " (Cornpl., ~ 4.) Its "core news publications are
26
its new litigation reports, which are e-mailed to its subscribers and contain staff-
27
written summaries of all significant new civil complaints filed in a particular court."
28
(~15.) To obtain these summaries, CNS assigns "reporters" to various courthouses
_3 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER54
Cas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 21 Filed 10/20/11 Page 11 of 32 Page ID
#:405
with the instruction to review newly-filed "unlimited jurisdiction" civil complaints
in which the matter in controversy exceeds $25~OOO.(Compl., ~ 18.)
Significantly, CNS does not seek the same "reasonable access" to new case
filings afforded to members of the general public. Cf Nixon v. Warner
Communications, Inc., 435
us. 589.98
S. Ct. 130655 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978)
(holding that members of the media generally have no greater rights or privileges
than do members of the general public). Instead, eNS explicitly alleges that it is
constitutionally entitled to what amounts to immediate or "same-day access" to
newly filed unlimited civil complaints. ostensibly because this "ensures that
interested members of the public learn about new civil litigation while the initiation
of that litigation is still newsworthy .....
" (Compl., ~~ 4~ 18.)
For most of the time periods alleged in its complaint, CNS did not seek to
obtain "same-day access" to filings in Ventura Superior Court. Instead, CNS
alleges that from 2000 to 2010, eNS's reporter only visited the Ventura Superior
Court's clerk's office "once or twice a week" to review new complaints maintained
in a "media bin." (Id.,
n22-25.)
Hence, whatever delays eNS may have
experienced during this period of time has little bearing on the substance of its
current claim to "same-day access" to civil filings.
eNS changed its business model in November 2010 by asking one of its
reporters to visit the Ventura Superior Court's clerk's office every day. (Id., ~ 25.)
However, rather than seek the same access as the clerk's office grants to. other
members of the general public, CNS asked for more. In particular, CNS alleges at
paragraph 25 of its complaint that it asked Ventura Superior Court should "adjust"
its procedures to grant "same-day access" to unlimited civil complaints not because
other members of the public obtained "same-day access" to complaints in Ventura,
but because courts in other jurisdictions allegedly have the ability to do so:
27
28
_4 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R(MANx)
FER55
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 21 Filed 10/20/11 Page 12 of 32 Page ID
#:406
1
2
3
25.
In an effort to improve the quality of the Centra] Coast Report through
more timely reporting
2010. Courthouse
on new civil unlimited jurisdi ction complaints,
News began covering Ventura SUper11X a daily basis. Prompted
4
its change to daily coverage and the access problems
5
Courthouse
6
7
possibility
in November
News once again initiated discussions
of adjusting its procedures
to newly filed unlimited jurisdiction
it continued to experience,
with the clerk's office about the
so that Ms. Krolak could have same-day access
civil complaints, as news reporters do in other
courts they visit on a daily basis.
8
9
10
eNS alleges that it sent a June 20, 2011 demand letter to Mr. Planet, attached
11
as Exhibit 2 to its Complaint. ild., ~ 26.) The demand letter explains that courts in
12
other jurisdictions, including federal courts that have adopted electronic filing
13
through the PACER system, have the ability to grant "same-day access" to CNS
14
reporters. (Id., ~ 26 & Ex. 2.) Mr. Planet responded to CNS's June 20,2011
15
demand letter on July 11,2011. (Id., ~ 27 & Ex. 3.) He explained that, while it was
16
not possible for the court to provide "same-day access" to all civil complaints, the
17
court would continue make files available "as early as practicable:"
18
19
20
21
22
23
A'$ you have noted, the Court has met and spoken with you and representatives of courmouse
NeW$ Service several tlmes over the past couple of years to both explain the Court's serious
resource =>hortagesa!ll a result of budget redUctions, and steps that could reasonably be taken
tQ make new complaints available to the media. The budget recenUy signed by the Governor
imposes even more draBlic reductions to the t;;ourts, which makes it even more difficult, to
provide same-day access 10 new flDngs. .
~
While I appreciate the Courthouse News Services' Interest fn same-day access, the Court
cannot prioritize that access above other priorities and mandates. Further~ the Court must
~nsur¢ the rntegrfty of all filings, including new mings, and·cannot make any fitil19s available
untUthe requisite prooessin9 i5 completed. We win continue to make every effort to make new
filings available as e~rIJ' as is practicable given the dema nds on. Hmiled cOurf resources.
24
25
26
u«, ,-r 27 & Ex. 3.)
27
28
_5 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER56
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 21 Filed 10/20/11
#:407
1
2
3
Page 13 of 32 Page 10
CNS alleges that, since receipt of the July 11, 2011 response from Mr.
Planet, its reporters have not obtained ""same-day access'" to all newly filed civil
unlimited complaints filed in the Ventura Superior Court. (,-r,-r 29-30).
4
·5
C.
6
7
8
CNS's complaint contains three claims for relief, the first two of which are
asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
9
1.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CNS's Complaint Asks This Court To Create Constitutional And
Common-Law Rights To "Same-Day Access" To Unlimited Civil
Complaints, Except As Deemed Permissible Following A "CaseBy-Case" Adjudication Of Individual Claims.
First Claim for Relief. CNS alleges that Ventura Superior Court
violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by delaying access
to new civil unlimited complaints and by failing to provide "timely, same-day
access to new civil unlimited complaints." (Id., 1f1f 32-35.)
2.
Second Claim for Relief. CNS alleges that Ventura Superior Court
violates federal common law by delaying access to new civil unlimited complaints
and by failing to provide "timely, same-day access to new civil unlimited
complaints." (ld.,
3.
mr 37-39.)
Tlrird Claim for Relief. Finally, eNS claims that, by failing to provide
"timely, same-day access" to newly filed unlimited civil complaints, Ventura
Superior Court has "effectively seal[ ed]" these complaints, in violation of
CalifomiaRule
of Court 2.550. (ld..1f1f 41-43.)
This is not a case in which the plaintiff seeks the standard prohibitory
22
injunction designed to maintain the status quo pending trial. Instead, as can be seen
23
24
25
26
27
from paragraph 1 of eNS's prayer for relief, CNS effectively seeks a stringent
mandatory injunction that is designed to alter the status quo pending trial by
requiring Ventura Superior Court to cease denying "same-day access" to civil
unlimited complaints:
28
_6 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-0&0&3 R (MANx)
FER57
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 21 Filed 10/20/11
#:408
Page 14 of 32 Page 10
1
,,','d
2
1.
For preliminary
and permanent injunctions against Defendant, including
3
his agents, assistants, successors,
4
cooperation with him, or at his direction or under his control, prohibiting
5
employees, and all persons acting in concert or
him
preliminarily. during the pendency of this action. and permanently thereafter, from
continuing his policies resulting in delayed access to new unlimited jurisdiction
6
7
civil
complaints and denying Courthouse News timely access to new civil unlimited
complaints
UUO,UlulUUlI
on the same day they are filed. except as deemed permissible
8
9
10
11
12
13
In addition, eNS asks this Court to enter a declaratory judgment that Ventura
Superior Court's failure to provide "same-day access" to newly filed unlimited civil
complaints violates the First Amendment, federal common law and California Rille
of Court 2.550:
14
15
2.
For a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring
16
Defendant's policies that knowingly affect delays in access and a denial of'timely,
17
same-day access to new civil unlimited complaints as unconstitutional under the First
18
19
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and in violation of'the
federal common law and California Rule of Court 2.550, for the reason that that it
constitutes an effective denial of access to court records.
20
21
22
D.
23
At the motion to dismiss stage, this Court is obligated to assume the truth of
What CNS's Complaint Fails To Allege.
24
the complaint's allegations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d
25
868 (2009); Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962,969 (9th Cir. 2009).
26
Nonetheless, three notable omissions are worthy of comment.
27
28
_7 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER58
Cas
2:11-cv-08083-R
1
1.
-MAN
Document 21 Filed 10/20/11
#:409
Page 15 of 32
Page 10
2
eNS Sponsored SB 326 -A Bill That Would Provide The Precise
Relief eNS Seeks Here.
3
CNS~s Complaint repeatedly suggests that it is entitled to "same-day access"
4
to newly filed unlimited civil complaints because such access historically has been
5
granted. However, CNS fails to disclose that it made the precise opposite claim
6
when it sponsored a "same-day access" bill known as Senate Bill 326 in the
7
California Legislature. (RJN, Ex. Al [Cal. Senate Bi1l326].) There, CNS claimed
8
that: (a) Government Code section 68150 already "provides the public with
9
reasonable access to court records;" (b) the term "reasonable access" is not defined;
10
(c) "many other courts have failed and refused to provide a system whereby the
11
public has access to court record information in a timely manner;" and (d) for these
12
reasons, legislation is necessary to "require the Judicial Council of California to
13
adopt a rule or rules of court to require courts to provide public access to case-
14
initiating civil and criminal court records, as defined, by no later than the end of the
15
day on which those records are received by the court." (ld., Ex. B [Cal. Senate
16
Judiciary Comm. May 3, 2011 Bill Analysis].)
17
CNS also failed to disclose that the Judicial Council of California has
18
objected to SB 326, advising that, "[w]hile the Council strongly favors timely
19
public access to court records that are subject to public disclosure, SB 326 sets a
20
standard for access that cannot be achieved without a significant increase in court
21
staffing." (Id., Ex. C [Apr. 27, 2011 Letter].) Subsequent revisions were made to
22
the bill, and Judicial Council changed its position to neutral. (Id., Ex. D [June 9~
23
2011 Letter].)
24
326 passed in the Senate on May 31, 2011. (Id., Ex. E [Complete Bill History].)
With those revisions and Judicial Council's neutral position, SB
25
After passing out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee with the amendments
26
required by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill was subsequently amended in
27
28
1 All citations to "RJN, Ex.
" are to the exhibitsattached to Mr. Planet's
concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Abstain and
Dismiss.
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
-8-
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R(MANx)
FER59
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 16 of 32 Page 10
#:410
1
2
3
4
5
the Assembly Appropriations
Committee a number of times.
The latest version of
CNS's proposed bill eliminated the key facets of the Senate Judiciary Committee's
revisions, and Judicial Council renewed its opposition, which highlighted the
unworkable
mandate ofSB 326, particularly
in light of ever-increasing
state court
budget cuts:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Subsequent to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing; the
ongoing cuts to the judicial branch in the budget were mcreased
by an additional $150 million. Most courts were not in a
position to comply with the same day mandate in SB 326 before
these additionar cuts were enacted out in the face of even
deeper reductions, courts will not have sufficient staff available
to fulfill the requirements of SB 326.
(Id., Ex. F [Aug. 8,2011 Letter] at 2.) The bill was held in the Assembly
Appropriations
Committee
at the time the committee reviewed those bills with
significant fiscal impact, and despite a further amendment taken on September
2011, it remains in that committee.
1,
(Id., Ex. E [Complete Bill History].)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
Ventura Superior Court Is Not An Electronic Filing Court.
CNS's Complaint purports to make much of the fact that other courts
allegedly provide it with "same-day access" to newly filed unlimited civil
complaints.
As its primary examples, CNS alleges that this Court and other U.S.
District Courts in California provide "same-day
makes lengthy allegations
many others in CNS' s self-selected
court access policies (id., Ex. I)-are
management
(Cornpl., ~ 11.) CNS also
about a state court in Las Vegas, Nevada.
However, all those courts-and
courts throughout
access."
(Id., -,r13.)
summary of
electronic filing courts. Indeed, all federal
the country employ the PACER system for court records
(id., -,r11), which mandates electronic filing of substantially
all
documents filed with the court. And the Las Vegas court also recently
implemented
a mandatory
e-filing protocol.
(Id., -,r13.) The result is that clerk's
offices in these courts are not burdened by the substantial additional administrative
task imposed by the need to process by hand every document filed with the court.
_9 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER60
Cas
2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 21 Filed 10/20/11
#:411
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
eNS does not allege-and
cannot allege-that
Page 17 of 32 Page ID
Ventura Superior Court is an
electronic filing court. Rather, the clerk's office staff at Ventura Superior Court
must process by hand each and every document filed with the court. This
distinction, which CNS ignores, is critical. It is not surprising that many e-filing
courts can provide "same-day access"; they are not burdened with the additional
administrative
perform.
tasks that non-e-filing
courts, like Ventura Superior Court, must
But the fact that e-filing courts are not burdened with those tasks does not
somehow compel imposition of an even greater burden on non-e- filing courts.
9
3.
10
CNS Has Not Attempted To Seek Appropriate Relief In State
Court.
11
As explained above, California law already requires courts to provide
12
"reasonable
13
68150(1) & 68151.
14
Instead, CNS argues that Ventura Superior Court's failure to provide "same-day
15
access" violates California Rule of Court 2.550 as an "exercise of unguided
16
discretion to effectively seal a court record," the authority for which "lies only in a
17
judge of the court."
18
infra Section ill), CNS has not sought relief from this alleged violation from "a
19
judge of the court." It has not sought any relief from the state courts under the
20
governing state law.
access" to court documents
CNS curiously avoids any reference to this governing statute.
(Id., 'i[33.) Even if this claim were well taken (it is not, see
21
22
once they are filed. See Cal. Gov't Code §
ARGUMENT
I.
THIS COURT SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM HEARING THIS CASE.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Article TIl of the Constitution
arid controversies."
Court recognized
limits federal court review to justiciable
See generally U.S. Const.,Art.
"cases
ill, §§ 1,2. As the Supreme
in Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 112, 103 S. Ct. 1660,75 L.
Ed. 2d 675 (1983), "[a] federal court ... is not the proper forum to press" general
complaints about the way in which government
-10 -
goes about its business.
See also
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R(MANx)
FER61
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
-MAN
Document 21 Filed 10/20/11
#:412
Page 18 of 32 Page ID
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 112-113, 115 S. Ct. 2038, 132 L. Ed. 2d 63
(1995) (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("Article ill courts are constrained by the
inherent constitutional limitations on their powers. Unlike Congress, which enjoys
discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed to secure the
guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, federal courts have no comparable
license and must always observe their limited judicial role.") (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
Whether a case is justiciable is governed, in part, by important separation of
powers principles. See Flast v. Cohen. 392 U.S. 83. 97,88 S. Ct. 1942.20 L. Ed.
2d 947 (1968). Thus, the Supreme Court has developed several related abstention
doctrines grounded in principles of comity and federalism to ensure that federal
courts do not improvidently resolve disputes and award relief that will intrude upon
the prerogatives of states to structure and fund their own governmental institutions.
See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378-80,96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1976)
("'When a plaintiff seeks to enjoin the activity of a government agency, even within
a unitary court system, his case must contend with the well-established rule that the
Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the dispatch of its
own internal affairs") (internal quotations and citations omitted).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A.
This Court Should Equitably Abstain From Hearing This Matter
Pursuant To O'Shea v. Littleton.
The Supreme Court first articulated the doctrine of equitable abstention in
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488,94 S. Ct. 669, 38 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1974). This
doctrine counsels federal courts to decline to exercise their equitable powers in
cases seeking to reform state institutions, because such suits offend traditional
notions of federalism by calling for "restructuring ... state government
institutions" and "dictating state or local budget priorities." O'Shea, 414 U.S. at
500; see also Horne v~Flores, 129 S. Ct. 2579, 2593, 174 L. Ed. 2d 406, 557 U.S.
28
_ 11 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11·08083 R (MANx)
FER62
Cas
2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 19 of 32 Page [0
#:413
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_
(2009) ("Federalism
concerns are heightened when, as in these cases, a federal
decree has the effect of dictating state and local budget priorities.
States and local
governments
have limited funds. When a federal court orders that money be
appropriated
for one program, the effect is often to take funds away from other
important programs.");
Los Angeles Cnty. Bar Ass 'n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697 (9th Cir.
1992) ("We should be very reluctant to grant relief that would entail heavy federal
interference
in such sensitive state activities as administration
of the judicial
system"); Ad Hoc Comm. on Judicial Admin. v. Massachusetts, 488 F.2d 1241,
1245-46 (Ist Cir. 1973) ("In this nation, the financing and, to an important extent,
the organization
of the judicial branches, federal and state, have been left to the
people, through their legislature ....
[I]t would be both unprecedented
unseemly for a federal judge to attempt a reordering
and
of state priorities").
Last month. the Ninth Circuit recognized that "[w]hen the state agency in
question is a state court ... the equitable restraint considerations
appear to be nearly absolute."
[of O'Shea]
E. T v. Cantil-Sakauye, No. 10-15248, slip op.
(quoting Parker v. Turner, 626 F.2d 1, 7
17457, 17464 (9th Cir. Sept. 13,2011)
(6th Cir. 1980)). Inthat case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's decision
to abstain from entertaining a suit seeking a declaration that the caseloads in
dependency
courts in the Superior Court of California,
unconstitutionally
excessive.'
Specifically,
County of Sacramento, were
the court reasoned the lower court had
properly "[h]eed[ ed] the teachings of 0 'Shea and cases since" by concluding that
"'[p]laintiffs'
challenges to the juvenile dependency
court system necessarily
require the court to intrude upon the state's administration
more specifically,
Supp.2d
its court system."
of its government,
and
Id., at 17463 (quoting E. T. v. George, 681 F.
1151, 1164 (E.D. Cal. 2010)).
The court further rejected the plaintiffs'
26
27
28
2 Although
a petition for rehearing and rehearing en bane is pending in E. T
before the Ninth Circuit the original three-judge panel decision remains valid law
unless and until the court grants the petition. See 9th Cir, Gen. Ornf".r.5.S(n\.
d
-1\.lemQ Siipportmg 1\irollOn to OtsmlSS an
_ 12 Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER63
Cas
2:11-cv-OB083-R -MAN
Document 21
Page 20 of 32 Page 10
Filed 10/20/11
#:414
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
invitation to consider only a request for declaratory relief (not injunctive relief):
"For 'even the limited decree]']' sought here 'would inevitably set up the precise
basis forfuture intervention condemned in O'Shea:"
v,
Id. at 17465 (quoting Luckey
Miller, 976 F.2d 673, 679 (lIth Cir. 1992)); see also id. ("[W]ere we to declare
the current Dependency Court attorney caseloads unconstitutional or unlawful, the
Defendants' compliance with that remedy and its effect in individual cases could be
subject to further challenges in federal district court.").
8
9
1.
eNS's Complaint Seeks The Exact Sort of Intervention With
State Judicial Administration That O'Shea Condemns.
10
The same equitable restraint considerations that underlie E.T, Ad Hoc
11
Committee and other cases compel abstention here. CNS seeks a mandatory
12
injunction that, by its very nature, would require this Court to "inquire into the
13
administration of [California's judicial] system, its utilization of personnel," and the
14
advisability of requiring it to adopt a "same-day access" policy in light of critical
15
and competing statewide budgetary concerns. Ad Hoc Comm., 488 F.2d at 1245;
16
see also 0 'Shea, 414 U.S. at 502 (criticizing the court of appeal's proposed
17
"periodic reporting system" as "a form of monitoring of the operation of state court
18
functions that is antipathetic to established principles of comity").
19
Most significantly, beyond an injunction requiring this Court's continuing
20
oversight to ensure the Ventura Superior Court's general compliance, CNS seeks an
21
injunction that necessarily would put the "federal district court in the role of
22
receiver for a state judicial branch" insofar as CNS seeks "same-day access" to new
23
civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints "except as deemed permissible following the
24
appropriate case-by-case adjudication." (Compl., Prayer, ,-r 1 (emphasis added);
25
see also Compl.i f] 34.) Thus, CNS acknowledges that "same-day access" might
26
not be possible in all circwnstances (even if required, which it is not), and wants
27
this Court to resolve those situations.
28
_ 13 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER64
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 21 of 32 Page 10
#:415
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
As Ad Hoc Committee warned, "[ w ]hile the state judiciary might appreciate
the additional resources, it would scarcely welcome the intermeddling
administration
with its
Ad Hoc Comm., 488 F.2d at 1246. This Court
which might follow."
should decline CNS's invitation to intermeddle with the California court system for
this reason.
See also Kaufman v. Kaye, 466 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[W]e
cannot resolve the issues raised here as to present assignment procedures
committing
without
to resolving the same issues as to the remedy chosen by the state and as
to the subsequent case-by-case
Second Department.
implementation
of the assignment procedures
in the
This is exactly what O'Shea forbids.").
10
12
CNS's Current Legislative Attempts For Relief Underscore
The Wisdom In This Court's Abstention.
2.
11
Case law consistently recognizes that decisions concerning budgets, staffing,
13
and procedural
14
or executive, rather than a judicial, power."
15
Hoc Comm., 488 F.2d at 1245 (ttln this nation, the financing and, to an important
16
extent, the organization
17
the people, through their legislature.").
18
Before filing its lawsuit here, CNS sought from the California legislature the very
19
same relief-albeit
20
matters of local agencies are best left to resolution by a "legislative
Jenkins, 515 U.S. at 133; see also Ad
of the judicial branches, federal and state, have been left to
And eNS knows this better than anyone.
on a statewide basis-that
it seeks here. (RJN, Ex. A.)
CNS's legislative effort supports abstention in at least three respects.
First,
21
SB 326 is still pending with the legislature, which will reconvene in January.
22
there is a risk that this Court's jurisdiction
23
intervening
24
with the state's legislative directive, causing confusion and uncertainty and wasting
25
precious resources.
26
Thus,
over the case could be mooted by
events. Even worse, this Court could render a decision inconsistent
Second, SB 326 demonstrates
that CNS's complaints about access are not
27
limited to one theoretically
anomalous
court. eNS actually contends that "timely"
28
access to newly filed unlimited civil complaints is a problem throughout
_ 14 _
thy state.
-'Memo Supporting Mohon to tilsmlss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER65
Cas
2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 22 of 32
Page 10
#:416
1
2
3
4
(Id., Ex. B.) Thus, if the Court were to entertain this action, it is likely to become
embroiled not just in the administration
administration
of the entire state judicial branch-an
intermeddling
that O'Shea intended to prevent.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
of the Ventura Superior Court, but in the
Third. SB 326 demonstrates
the arbitrariness
exponentially
ofCNS's
greater level of
position.
Prior to
2010, CNS did not visit Ventura Superior Court every day (and even then
apparently reported only on new filings from only one of Ventura's
courthouses),
and therefore had no need for "same-day access."
three
(Compl., ~~ 22-
25.) In late 2010, it changed its business model to increase coverage of that court
and began sending a reporter daily. (Id.,,-r 25_) Now, through its Complaint,
CNS
seeks "same-day access" to newly filed unlimited civil complaints
filed in Ventura
Superior Court. Through SB 326, however, CNS seeks "same-day
access" to
newly filed unlimited civil complaints
determines
(in its sole discretion) that other types of filings are "newsworthy"
~ 15), it may seek "same-day
contend that "same-day
access.
filed throughout the state. And, as eNS
(id.,
access" to those. Indeed, at some point, CNS may
access" is no longer sufficient; it must be "within the hour"
But this Court has no obligation, much less prudential need, to conform the
law to CNS' s ever-changing
business model. If anything, the law should require
eNS to change its model to adapt to the reasonable
access that it already is
provided.
In short, "the proposed cure" that CNS seeks would be worse "than the
disease."
Ad Hoc Comm., 488 F.2d at 1246. This Court should exercise its
discretion to equitably abstain from hearing this action accordingly.
24
25
26
27
B.
This Court Should Abstain From Hearing This Matter Pursuant
To Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co.
Abstention
doctrines do more than prevent federal courts from intruding
upon the prerogatives
of states to structure and fund their own governmental
28
_ 15 _
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. cv 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER66
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 23 of 32
Page 10
#:417
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
institutions.
Abstention
"unnecessary
doctrines also honor comity and federalism by avoiding
friction in federal-state
relations, interference
with important state
functions, tentative decisions on questions of state law, and premature
constitutional
adjudication."
Pearl Investment Co. v. City and County of San
Francisco, 774 F.2d 1460, 1462 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1170 (1986)
(internal quotations omitted).
announced
Hence, under a separate abstention doctrine first
in Railroad Comm 'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500-01,61
S. Ct. 643, 85 L. Ed. 971 (1941), "federal courts should abstain from decision when
difficult and unsettled questions of state law must be resolved before a substantial
federal constitutional
question can be decided."
U.S. 229, 236, 104 S. Ct. 2321,81
Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467
L. Ed. 2d 186 (1984).
In the Ninth Circuit, federal courts have the discretion to abstain under
Pullman when: "(1) The complaint touches a sensitive area of social policy upon
which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to its adjudication
is open[;] (2) Such constitutional
adjudication plainly can be avoided if a definitive
ruling on the state issue would terminate the controversy[;
determinative
issue of state law is doubtful.'
and] (3) The possibly
Smelt v. County of Orange, 447 F.3d
673, 679 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 959 (2006); see generally Canton v.
Spokane Sch. Dist. # 81, 498 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. ·1974).
Pullman and its progeny create a narrow exception to a federal court's duty
to adjudicate claims properly before it. E.g., County of Allegheny v. Frank
Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188,3 L. Ed. 2d 1163, 79 S. Ct. 1060 (1958).
Nonetheless,
Pullman abstention warrants careful consideration
because all three of
the factors enunciated by the Ninth Circuit are present in this case. To start, as
explained above, the Complaint here asks this Court to become the overseer of the
administrative
operations of the Ventura Superior Court, and to decide, apparently
on a case-by-case
basis, whether access to newly filed unlimited civil complaints
28
_ 16 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER67
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-MAN
Document 21 Filed 10/20/11
#:418
Page 24 of 32 Page ID
must be granted on a "same-day basis." Pullman abstention is appropriate in this
circumstance because "federal courts owe deference to their state counterparts in
situations where public perceptions of the integrity of the state judicial system are
affected." Hughes v. Lipscher, 906 F.2d 961. 967 (3d Cir. 1990); see also
Almodovar v. Reiner, 832 F.2d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir. 1987) ("the 'sensitive social
. policy' prong ... recognizes that abstention protects state sovereignty over matters
of local concern, out of considerations of federalism, and out of scrupulous regard
for the rightful independence of state governments").
As for the second and third Pullman factors, resolution of at least two
unsettled questions of state law could obviate the need for this action in its entirety.
As noted above, Government Code section 68150(1) already provides that court
records of all types "shall be made reasonably accessible to all members of the
public for viewing and duplication .....
" Cal. Gov't Code § 8150(1) (emphasis
added). However, as CNS and other sponsors of SB 326 have already
acknowledged, the term, "'reasonable access' is not defined under existing law."
(RJN, Ex. Bat 2.)
Much the same can also be said of CNS' s third claim for relief for violation
of Califomia Rule of Court 2.550. This Rule of Court provides that "court records
are presumed to be open," and permits trial courts to seal a court record only when
"(I) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to
the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial
probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced ifthe record is not
sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive
means exist to achieve the overriding interest." Cal. R. ct. 2.550(c) & (d); see also
Compl., ~~ 41-42 (quoting these provisions). It certainly is an open and unsettled
question whether these Rules of Court somehow recognize an enforceable right to
"same-day access" to newly filed unlimited civil complaints.
28
_ 17 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER68
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 25 of 32
Page 10
#:419
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
As explained in greater detail below (see infra Section ill), the Eleventh
Amendment
precludes a federal court from ruling on eNS' s state-law claim. In any
event, a state court ruling requiring "same-day
civil complaints pursuant to Government
access" to newly filed unlimited
Code section 68150(1) or Rule of Court
2.550 would, of necessity, obviate the need for this Court to rule on the First
Amendment
issues eNS presses here. Pullman abstention is warranted for this
See C-Y Dev. Co. v. Redlands, 703 F.2d 375,377-78
reason.
(9th Cir. 1983)
("[T]he assumption which justifies abstention is that a federal court's erroneous
determination
of a state law issue may result in premature or unnecessary
constitutional
adjudication,
statutes.
and unwarranted
interference with state programs and
A state law question that has the potential of at least altering the nature of
questions is thus an essential element of Pullman
the federal constitutional
abstention.")
(citation omitted); Canton, 498 F.2d at 845 ("With regard to elements
(2) and (3) [of the Pullman abstention test], it is crucial that the uncertainty
state law be such that construction
in the
of it by the state courts might obviate, or at least
delimit, decision of the federal (constitutional)
question.").
17
18
19
20
21
II.
CNS'S FmST AND SECOND CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FAIL TO
STATE A CLAIM FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL OR FEDERAL
COMMON LAW "RIGHT" OF SAME-DAY ACCESS TO NEWLY
FILED UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINTS.
Even if 0 'Shea and Pullman abstention doctrines could not be invoked here,
CNS's first and second claims for relief should be dismissed for failure to state a
22
As noted above, CNS alleges that it has both a
claim as a matter oflaw.
23
24
constitutional
and common-law
access must be timely.
(CompI.,
25
dispute either proposition;
right of access to court records, and that such
mr 32,37.)
Ventura Superior Court does not
as discussed above, even the California Government
26
Code mandates "reasonable
27
access" to all court records.
§ 68150(1). But CNS then takes the unsupportable
28
_ 18 _
Cal. Gov't Code
leap that timely access to court
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER69
Cas
2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 21
Page 26 of 32
Filed 10/20/11
Page 10
#:420
1
2
records equates to "same-day access".
(CompI.,
-u'tf 32,37.)
No such right exists
under the law.
3
4
A.
The First Claim For Relief Should Be Dismissed Because The First
Amendment Does Not Guarantee Same-Day Access.
5
1.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
First Amendment Public Rights Of Access To Court
Records Are Governed By "Experience And Logic." .
In Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 579-81, 100 S. Ct.
2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980). the Supreme Court held for the first time that the
First Amendment
gave the press and public an affirmative qualified right of access
to criminal court proceedings.
evaluating First Amendment
concurring),
The Court identified two related criteria for
right of access, id. at 588-89 (Brennan, Marshall, JJ,
which it later termed "considerations
whether the place and process have historically
public (Le., "experience");
of experience
and logic:"
(1)
been open to the press and general
and (2) whether public access plays a significant
positive role in the functioning
of the particular process in question (i.e., "logic").
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 US 1, 8, 106 S. Ct. 2735,92 L. Ed. 2d
1 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II). Both criteria must be satisfied to establish a
qualified right to access.
2.
CNS cannot satisfy either.
Historic "Experience" Does Not Recognize A Right To
Same-Day Access To Court Records.
20
a. There Is No Historic Right To Same-Day Access As A
Matter Of Law.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Since Richmond, the Supreme Court has revisited the First Amendment
of access only in the context of criminal proceedings.
right
See Globe Newspaper Co. v.
Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596,606-11,
102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982)
(closing proceedings
of underage rape victim unconstitutional);
during testimony
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508-13, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78
L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984) (closing voir dire in criminal case unconstitutional
28
_ 19 _
in light of
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-080&3 R (MANx)
FER70
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
importance
-MAN
Document 21 Filed 10/20/11
#:421
Page 27 of 32 Page 10
of that process to the criminal justice system and the long history of
public voir dire); Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 10-15 (qualified First
Amendment
right of access to criminal proceedings
as conducted in California);
391-92,99
applies to preliminary
hearings
cf. Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368,
S. Ct. 2898,61 L. Ed. 2d 608 (1979) (assuming, without deciding, a
First Amendment
Amendment
right of access to attend criminal trial and holding First
was not violated by orders excluding members of public and press
from pretrial suppression hearing and temporarily
suppression
denying access to transcript of
hearing).
Although several lower federal and state courts have extended the public's
First Amendment
right of access to civil proceedings
and related court records,
none has held that (or even considered whether) access to civil case filings must
occur the same day they are filed or otherwise submitted to a court. See, e.g., New
York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Auth., 652 F.3d 247,250-51
(2d Cir. 2011) (permanently enjoining on First Amendment
Authority's
proceedings);
policy precluding
public access to administrative
grounds City Transit
adjudicatory
Rushford v. New Yorker Mag., 846 F.2d 249,253
(applying "the more rigorous First Amendment
connection with a summary judgment
(4th Cir. 1988)
standard to documents filed in
motion in a civil case" and ordering sealed
documents unsealed, save those subject to a protective
order); NBC Subsidiary
(KNBC-TV), Inc., 20 Cal. 4th at 1181-82 (concluding trial court's order excluding
public and press from high profile civil trial violated First Amendment
access to "ordinary civil trials and proceedings");
Cal. App. 4th 1045, 1052-53, 1060-62,37
In re Marriage of Burkle, 135
Cal. Rptr. 3d 805 (2006) (holding
facially invalid statute requiring sealing of pleadings
party request; under First Amendment
right of
in divorce proceedings
upon
strict scrutiny statute was not narrowly
27
28
_ 20 _
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER71
Cas
1
2
2: 11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 21 Flied 10/20/11
#:422
Page 28 of 32 Page ID
tailored to serve overriding privacy interests in light of presumption of openness to
civil court proceedings).
3
b. The Courtesies Extended To eNS By Some Courts Does
4
Not Otherwise
Day Access.
5
6
Establish
An Historic Right To Same-
CNS alleges a "tradition" of "same-day access" to new unlimited civil
mr 11-14
7
complaints based on its experience with other court procedures. (CompI.,
8
& Ex. 1.) Closer scrutiny of CNS's claims, however, shows that they establish no
9
such right.
10
eNS identifies courts in only 23 ofthe 50 states where it is allegedly
11
provided "same-day access" to new civil complaints. (Id.) Moreover, many of
12
those courts employe-filing systems that dramatically reduce the processing
13
burdens on clerk office staff, which contrasts sharply with Ventura Superior Court.
14
And within California, CNS alleges the courtesy of "same-day access" at only
IS
seven of approximately 532 court locations within California's 58 counties. (Id. at
16
23,25,27,29-31.)
17
anything, much less warrant imposition of a right to "same-day access."
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
This deficient sampling does not constitute a "tradition" of
"Logic" Does Not Recognize A Right To Same-Day Access,
Either.
The "logic" prong of the Supreme Court's two-part test inquires whether
public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular
process in question. Press-Enterprise II, 478 US at 8. CNS suggests that local
court considerations-including
budgets constraints, court caseloads, personnel
capacities, and priorities of other court business-must
bow to the
"newsworthiness" of newly filed unlimited civil complaints in the short Window
between when they are received by the court for processing and then filed. (See
Compl., ~ 10.) But the lack of contemporaneous news reporting does not itself
diminish the significance of the news reports, even in the criminal context:
_ 21 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11·08083 R (MANx)
FER72
Cas 2: 11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 29 of 32 Page 10
#:423
1
2
3
4
5
6
We recognize the worth of timely news reported on the front page
and, by contrast, the diminished value of noteworthy, but untimely,
news reported on an inside page. Implicit in that assessment,
however. is the fair assumption that significant news will receive the
amount of publicity it warrants. The value served by the first
amendment right of access is in its guarantee of a public watch to
guard against arbitrary, overreaching, or even corrup-t action by
participants in judicial proceedings. Any serious indication of such an
Impropriety, would, we believe, receive significant exposure in the
media, even when such news is not reported contemporaneously with
the suspect event.
823 F.2d 111, 119 (5th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added).
7
United States v. Edwards,
8
Thus, even where the Supreme Court historically has been the most protective,
9
there has been no recognized right of "same-day access" to such records.
10
The public's interest in being on "watch" at the case-initiation stage of a civil
11
case is far less pronounced, if it exists at all, than in pending criminal proceedings
12
where it has been held there is no right to contemporaneous access to judicial
13
records. See id. at 118 (concluding that "the first amendment guarantees a limited
14
right of access to the record of closed proceedings concerning potential jury
15
misconduct and raises a presumption that the transcript of such proceedings will be
16
released within a reasonable time") (emphasis added).
17
Moreover, courts have long recognized that alleged delays in case
18
adjudication-s-not unlike delays in judicial administration generally-c-are an "old
19
story and a traditional source of exasperation to litigants." Lucien v. Johnson, 61
20
F.3d 573, 574 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting that "when the relief sought is an order to the
21
delaying agency to hurry up, the seeker's prospects are, as a practical matter, very
22
close to nil"). Nevertheless, outside the criminal arena (which constitutionally
23
mandates the right to a speedy trial), it is "exceedingly difficult to obtain a remedy
24
against delay by an adjudicative body" because "[h]ann from delay is difficult to
25
prove, and judges are reluctant to order other judges (or their administrative
26
counterparts) to hurry up." Id.; see, e.g., Cleveland Bd. ofEduc. v. Loudermill, 470
27
U.S. 532, 547, 105 S. Ct. 1487,84 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1985); Los Angeles Cnty. Bar
28
Ass 'n, 979 F .2d at 706-07 ("Given the risks to the quality of judicial decision_ 22 _
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER73
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-MAN Document 21 Filed 10/20/11
#:424
Page 30 of 32 Page 10
making implicit in hasty or forced action, we are unwilling to suggest that the
Constitution
may dictate or even countenance
a time limit on the consideration
a
judge may give to a civil case.").
Here, there is no harm from the reasonable access CNS already receives at
Ventura Superior Court. CNS has failed to identify a single subscriber that has
lamented eNS's
purportedly
delayed reporting.
instance where any alleged delay in processing
eNS has failed to identify one
a new complaint meant that eNS
lost out on an opportunity to timely report on an event. In fact, exactly the opposite
is true. eNS touts itself as such a trusted source for timely reporting on key
litigation events that numerous other news sources use CNS's reporting as a jumpoff for their own reporting, which often occurs many days after CNS's reporting.
(See Compl., IIjf 17.) Thus, there is no "logic"-based
access should be recognized,
reason why a same-day right of
much less compelled, here. The first claim for relief
should be dismissed accordingly.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
B.
The Second Claim For Relief Should Be Dismissed Because
Federal Common Law Does Not Guarantee Same-Day Access.
Although there exists a general common law right to inspect and access
judicial records, that right is likewise qualified and affords even less substantive
protection
to the interests of the press and public than does the First Amendment.
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598; Rushford, 846 F.2d at 253.
Moreover, eNS's
reliance on this general common-law
right of access is
insufficient to state a claim under 42 V.S.C. § 1983 because, despite CNS's
suggestion to the contrary, Ventura Superior Court does not have a "blanket rule"
preventing
complaints.
CNS from accessing and inspecting all civil unlimited jurisdiction
(CompI., IIjf 38.) Indeed, that very notion is belied by CNS's allegations
elsewhere that detail (albeit with questionable
to which they have "same-day access."
accuracy) the number of complaints
(Jd.,,-r 29.)
28
_ 23 -
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (l'v1ANx)
FER74
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 21
Filed 10/20/11
Page 31 of 32 Page 10
#:425
1
2
3
4
As with its First Amendment
claim, though, eNS fails to identify any
authority that would support a common-law
right of access claim for failure to
provide "same-day access" to civil complaints.
be dismissed
The second claim for relief should
accordingly.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
III.
THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT BARS CNS'S THIRD CLAIM FOR
RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF RULE OF COURT 2.550.
The Eleventh Amendment
jurisdictional
injunctive
to the United States Constitution
operates as a
limit on the Court's power, and bars suits that seek either damages or
relief against a State, an arm of the State, as well as the instrumentalities
and agencies of a State. U.S. Const., Amend XI; Durning v. Citibank, NA., 950
F.2d 1422, 1422-23 (9th Cir. 1991)~ Cal. Mother Infant Program v. Cal. Dep 't of
Corrs., 41 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1125 (S.D. Cal. 1999).
Lawsuits against state officials in their official capacity are nothing more
than attempts to sue the State, and thus also are barred. Kentucky v. Graham, 473
U.S. 159, 164-66, 105 S. Ct. 3099,87
L. Ed. 2d 114 (1985); Will v. Michigan Dep 't
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1988) (holding
that '" arms ofthe State' for Eleventh Amendment
purposes"
are not liable under §
1983); Cent. Reserve Life of N Am. Ins. Co. v. Struve, 852 F.2d 1158, ·1160 (9th
Cir. 1988) (affirming district court's conclusion that Eleventh Amendment
precluded
prosecution
of state claims against a state official).
state courts are arms of the state for Eleventh Amendment
Settled law holds that
purposes.
Greater L.A.
Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987). And the
Ninth Circuit has specifically
representative
held that lawsuits against court employees
capacities are subject to the Eleventh Amendment:
state a claim against the Sacramento
in their
"Plaintiff cannot
County Superior Court (or its employees),
because such suits are barred by the Eleventh Amendment."
Simmons v.
Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003); see also
28
_ 24 _
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)
FER75
Cas 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 21
Filed 10/20/11 Page 32 of 32 Page 10
#:426
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cal. Gov't Code § 811.9 ("[C]ourt executive officers ofthe superior courts are state
officers .... "),
Here, eNS alleges a claim for violation of California Rule of Court 2.550
against Mr. Planet, sued in his official capacity as Executive Officer and Clerk of
the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura. That claim is barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Helderman, 465 U.S.
89, 106, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1984) ("[I]t is difficult to think of a
greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state
officials on how to conform their conduct to state law.· Such a result conflicts
directly with the principles of federalism that underlie the Eleventh Amendment.").
eNS's third claim for relief should be dismissed accordingly.
12
13
14
15
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, Ventura Superior Court's motion to abstain and dismiss
should be granted, and this action should be dismissed in its entirety. .
Dated: October 20, 2011
16
Respectfully submitted,
JONES DAY
17
18
By: lsi Robert A. Naeve
Robert A. Naeve
19
20
Attorneys for Derendant
MICHAEL PLANET, IN IDS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS COURT EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/CLERK OF TIIE VENTURA
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
21
22
LAl·3JS18S0
23
24
25
26
27
28
_ 25 _
Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss and
Abstain Case No. CV 11·08083 R (MANx)
FER76
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
00/00/2011
-MAN
Document 8
U: 10: 27 FAX 2132499990
Filed 09/29/11
Page.1 of 52 Page ID #:281
.NATIONWIDE
r;g"GAL
1
COpy
~
1 Rachel Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
2
racheLmatteo--boehm@hro.com
3
4
David Greene (SBN 160107)
david.greene@hro.com
Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
r
13
;
;.-
~
.
?.!
,-
1
:..
!~
~~
r'
...
..
""1
.7]
:::;
VI
-t
CV11-08083U~AlJ~
CASENO.__ ~~=-
Courthouse News Service,
DECLARATION
Plainti~"
16
Michael Planet. in his official capacity
Ventura. County Superior Court.
20
Defendant.
21
OF CHRISTOPHER
MOTION OF COURTHOUSE
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
22
-=
MARSHALL IN SUPPORT OF
v.
17
19
-0
N
\0
:~'-' C", "
15
18
(;')
m
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
,..
12
14
..
!"
r
i
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
11
:~
";,r;
f
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
560 Mission Street,-Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone: (415) 268-2000
8 Facsimile: (415) 268-1999
9
[0
n,....~-
,
leilaJmox@hro.com
5
6
7
,
:.:.:
-=
8S
NEWS
SERVICE FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Date:
Nov. 7, 2011
Time;
Courtroom:
Judge:
10:00 am
23
24
I. Christopher Marshall, declare and state as follows:
2S
1.
I serve as Northern California Bureau Chief for Courthouse News
26
Service C~Courthouse News"), the plaintiff In the above-captloned action. [have
27
personal knowledge of the following facts" and could testify to them if called as a
28
witness.
DI!CLARATION OF CURISTOPHER MARSHALL
f6l199 ..llIr
FER77
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
2.
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
I began working for Courthouse
Page 2 of 52
News, a nationwide
Page 10 #:282
legal news service,
2
in August 2006. I started out as the Silicon Valley Reporter, reporting on new civil
3
4
Court, and then became the San Francisco
,
Federal Reporter, reporting on new "filings at the United States District Court for the
5
Northern District of California.
6
as bureau chief, which encompasses
7
Although my official title is Northern California Bureau Chief, it is somewhat a
8
misnomer,
9
California, but are also located in Southern California and Nevada.
filings at the Santa Clara County Superior
"
In June 2007, I was promoted to my current position
both administrative
and editorial duties.
in that the reporters I supervise are not exclusively
located in Northern
In all, I supervise
10
fourteen reporters and five researchers
11
civil complaints
12
California superior courts for the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Kern, Marin,
13
Monterey, Napa, Sacramento,
14
Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Sonoma, Stanislaus and Ventura; the
15
Eighth Judicial District Court in Las. Vegas; and United States District Courts for the
16
Northern District of California, the Eastern District of California, and the District of
17
Nevada.
18
Courthouse
19
Francisco to report on new civil complaints
20
who are assigned to provide coverage of new
filed in state and federal courts in California and Nevada, including
San Benito, San Francisco,
San Joaquin, San Luis
In addition, I continue to serve as the San Francisco Federal Reporter for
3.
News.
As such, I make daily visits to the U.S. District courthouse in San
filed in that court.
In the course of my duties as Northern California Bureau Chief, I am in
21
frequent contact with the reporters that I supervise regarding their reporting activities
22
at the courts that they cover. From time to time, I visit state and federal courts that are
23
under my supervision
24
in place in these courts, and frequently
25
courts in discussions
26
courts.
27
federal courts in California for providing news reporters with access to case-initiating
28
documents
in order to stay current with access and other procedures that are
engage clerk's office officials at the various
regarding news coverage of new civil complaints
As such, I have developed personal knowledge
filed at those
of the procedures
at state and
in civil cases. In both state and federal courts, it is both traditional and
2
DECLARATION
N68199
OF CHRISTOPHER
MARSHALL
vi •• f
FER78
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 3 of 52
Page ID #:283
1
common to provide reporters who visit every day with access to the civil complaints
2
filed earlier that same day. Courthouse
3
timely access as "same-day access."
4
provided
5
the time of the reporter's
This access has traditionally
visit to the court.
For example, at the San Francisco Division of the U.S. District Court for
7
the Northern District of Calif ami a, the court that I personally
8
reporters
go behind the counter and.reviewnew
..
9
regardless
and continues to be
regardless of whether the day's new complaints have been fully processed at
4.
6
News frequently refers to this traditional and
complaints
cover on a daily basis,
filed earlier that day,
.
of whether the complaints have been fully processed or posted on PACER.
10
(In the Northern District, complaints are not e-filed, but rather are filed in paper forrn.)
11
They also have access to the "transfer boxes" of new actions being sent to different
12
divisions of the court, and are provided with a copy of the intake log that lists newly
13
filed complaints.
14
District of California, which is one of the courts under my supervision,
15
behind the counter to review a list of all new civil complaints filed earlier that day,
16
and then obtain complaints directly from individual clerks' desks. Reporters can then
17
review and scan any newsworthy
18
desks.
19
5.
At the San Jose Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
complaiuts
reporters go
before returning them to the clerks'
At the California superior courts for the counties of San Francisco and
20 Santa Clara, both of which I ~lsod~uiJervis~tor Courthouse News, new complaints are
21
placed in a media box, available to news reporters for viewing before they have been
22 fully processed.
23 identification
At the San Francisco County Superior Court, the reporter provides
and then is allowed to go behind the counter in the clerk's office to
24
conduct this review.
25
her review on the public side of the counter, but the procedures
At the Santa Clara County Superior Court, the reporter conducts
are essentially the
26 same: new unlimited civil jurisdiction complaints are made available for review upon
27
28
3
DECLARA nON
OF CHRlSTOPHER
MARSHALL
#68199 \'1 ssf
FER79
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page
of 52
Page 10 #:28
II
1
receipt of the filing fee, the assignment ofa case number, and the assignment of a first
2
status conference date, even though processing of the complaint is far from over at
3
this juncture. Same-day access to newly filed complaints is also provided at the
4
California superior courts for the County of Alameda (at the Rene C. Davidson
5
Courthouse) and the County of Contra Costa, both of which are also under my
6
supervision in my work for Courthouse News. Those courts provide access after a
7
certain amount of additional processing has been completed but they still provide the
8
traditional same-day access. In all of these courts, complaints are filed in traditional
9
paper form,
10
6.
The Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, another of the
11
courts that I supervise as a regional bureau ~hief for Courthouse News, also provides
12
Courthouse News' .reporter with same-day access to newly filed civil complaints.
13
Indeed, Courthouse News' experience' with that court shows that providing the news
14
media with same-day access to new complaints is possible both in the traditional
15
paper and e-filing environments. Prior to that court's transition to mandatory e-filing
16
in February 2010, court officials provided Courthouse News' reporter with paper
17
complaints filed earlier that day, regardless of whether they had been fully processed.
18
Following the switch to mandatory e-filing, which included e-filing of complaints, the
19
court began requiring news reporters to review new complaints at a computer terminal
20
in the clerk's office, but this system resulted in complaints not being available for
21
viewing until the day after they were filed. The reason for these delays was that new
22
complaints did not appear on the computer terminals until after they had been
23
"accepted" by the clerk's office, and onlyafter the terminals had been updated to
24
reflect the new filings. After Courthouse News brought these delays to the attention
25
of the court, the court adopted a new system: an electronic in-box (or, more precisely,
26
a feature called 'c i~~lpdjng Superior Courts in Fresno, Kings, Madera,
Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San IO!IQuin,; Sonoma, and Tulare Counties. provide media access
in this manner, The consecutive numbering means that the clerks ill these courts can easily gather
even a large number of files quickly and place them on a cart for the reporter, and need not spend
time locating particular cases. The reporter then reviews the cases and returns them to the clerks
when his or her review has been completed.
1114J84hlAf
Exhibit 1
Page 13
FER90
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 15 of 52
Page [0 #:295
Holme Roberts & Owen UP
AUort11IJ'6 at Law
Michael D. Planet
April 29, 2009
Page 3
reporting activities. Courthouse News attempted at various times to work out these issues
with Linda Daniels, a supervisor in the clerk's office, as well as Records Manager Peggy
Yost. Unfortunately. these efforts have proved unsuccessful.
The situation became much worse several months ago, when the court instituted a new
role limiting members of the media to on1y 25 files each day. Rather than reviewing a
stack of sequentially-numbered
files, Ms. Krolak must now request new complaints
individually by filling out a separate request slip for each complaint she wishes to see.
Since there are often more than 50 potentially newsworthy civil unlimited cases filed in
any given week, the 2S-file limit frequently prevents Ms. Krolak from reviewing and
reporting on all of the week's newsworthy filings.
In addition to the overall file limit, Ms. Krolak may request only 5 cases at a time. Even
if none of the 5 cases is available, Ms. Krolak must wait in line - usually for at least 30
minutes and sometimes for .an hour .or more - to ask for another 5 cases. Each requested
case counts toward Ms ..Kr~·s75-fil~
limit, even if it is not available. 1n addition,
court staff sometimes count every casein the media bin towards Ms. Krolak's 25-case
quota. even if all of the media bin
turn out to be older cases that she has already
reviewed on previous visits.
cases
Right Of Access To Civil Court Records
At most California courts, and in state and federal trial courts across the nation, news
reporters who regularly visit the court are provided with the opportunity to review all of
the new complaints filed since that reporter's last visit. In California, courts have
adopted a variety of procedures that achieve this result As noted above, some courts
simply provide news reporters with a stack of sequentially nmnbered cases :filed since
their lest visit. Others ask that reporters request individual cases based on docket
information provided on a list or via a computer terminal, but either do not impose limits
on the number of cases that may be viewed, or impose limits that are set high enough so
as to not prevent news reporters from reviewing all of the potentially newsworthy new
complaints filed since their last visit. Still others make all new filings - and not just
selected filings - available for media review in a designated press box. In addition. these
court have developed procedures that eliminate the need for members of the news media
-' :H~
~ !l
.,
.",-
E~Mb1t1
Page 14
FER91
-"
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
?~
';
Document 8
~ ~
Filed 09/29/11
Page 1 of 52
Page 10 #:29
Home Roberts & Owen UP
AUomgs
al
Lew
Michael D. Planet
April 29, 2009
Page 4
who review new filings from having to stand in line several times as part of a single visit
to the court.
The media access procedures impose.d.1n Ventura County are not only significantly more
restrictive than access poiici~ at'other:Califomia courts, but are also inconsistent with
California's strong presumption of public access to civil court documents. NBC
Subsidiary (KNEC-TV), Inc. '11. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4111 1178, 1208 n.25 (1999)
(recognizing First Amendment right of access to civil court records); accord, e.g.,
Savagiio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 149 Cal. App. 4tli 588, 596 (2007); Burkle v. Burkle,
135 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 1062 (2006); Cal. Rule Ct. 2.550(b) & (c) (once a record has
been filed or lodged with a court. it is presumed to be open to public inspection).
In addition, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the media function "as
surrogates for the public," which today acquires information about court proceedings
"chiefly through the print and electronic media." Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v, Virginia,
448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980). Thus, in the context of courtroom proceedings, although
''media representatives enjoy the same rights of access as the public, they often are
provided special seating and priority of entry 80 that they may report what people in
attendance have seen and heard .... Ill. at 573. For the same reason, it is appropriate to
provide news reporters who visit the court on a regular basis with special procedures for
obtaining timely access to new complaints, even if those exact same procedures are not
provided to researchers and/or the general public.
Potential SolutioDs To Improve Access
There are at least two possible. solutions that would resolve the current media access
problems at this Court:
Option #1 - Courthouse News respectfully suggests that the simplest solution would be
to reinstate the system of allowing members of the news media such as Ms. Krolak to
review all of the consecutively numbered cases filed since their last visit. This would
seem to be the easiest and least time-consuming option for the Court. as it would entail
simply gathering all files within a certain case-number range and placing them on a cart
rather than locating individual file numbers. Although the total number of requested
~*hruft1
Page 15
FER92
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
;,~ ~
Filed 09/29/11
Page 1 of 52
Page 10 #:29
Holme Roberts & Owen UP
~atLam
Michael D. Planet
April 29, 2009
PageS
cases might be large, staff in other courts can generally gather even a relatively large
number of cases in a given case number range wi thin a matter of minutes.
Option #2 - In the event the Court determined for whatever reason that it did not want to
reinstate its prior procedures, the Court could instead simply eliminate the limit on the
number of non-sequential cases that. accredited members of the news media such as Ms.
Krolak could request on each: of their visits, or at least increase that limit. Ms. Krolak
estimates that she would seldom need'to see more than 50 files each visit, but to allow
some breathing room, Courthouse Ne~ respectfully suggests that members of the news
media such as Ms. Krolak be pennitted to review up to 60 files per visit.
Whatever procedures the Court ultimately adopts, Courthouse News also respectfully
requests that the procedures be revised so that members of the media sucb as Ms. Krolak
can obtain access to all potentially newsworthy new filings, whether from the media bin
or from the shelves. at the same time. without needing to stand in line multiple times
during the same visit to the Court.
It has been CNS's experience that when the media and court officials work together in a
cooperative and creative manner, solutions can almost always be found that give the
media prompt and efficient access to court filings without imposing any significant
burden on court staff. I will call you next week: follow up on this matter. in. the hopes that
we can discuss whether one of the solutions outlined above could be adopted to resolve
the current access problems. In the event you determine that neither of the above
solutions would be workable, perhaps we could meet in person to discuss the matter
further. Although I am based in San Francisco, ] have family in Ventura (recently-retired
City Attorney Bob Boehm is my father) and always welcome another opportunity to visit
the area.
"i'
.
:.;.
A..-: ~
1f~f17?~
Rachel Matteo-Boehm
... 3844 Y2saf
Exhibit]
Page 16
FER93
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R· -MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 18 of 52 Page 10 #:298
Michael D. Planet
April 29. 2009
Page 6
cc: Hon, Kevin J. McGee, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California,
County of
Ventura
Cheryl Kanatzar, Deputy Executive Officer
Bill Girdner, Editor, Courthouse News Service
Christopher Marshall, Northern California Bureau Chief. Courthouse News Service
Julianna Krolak, Reporter, Courthouse News Service
6<0344 vZ sar
Exhibit 1
Page 17
FER94
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 19 of 52
Page 10 #:299
EXIDBIT2
FER95
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document
8
Filed 09/29/1.1 Page 20 of 52
~
Page 10 #:300
o·
s~~o/~
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Hall of Justice
800 South VICtoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Mu:.hael D. Planet
Executive OJficel'lClel'k
and JlII)J Commissioner
May 13, 2009
Ms. Rachel Matteo-Boehm
Holme Roberts & Owen, LlP
560 Mission St., ·25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Dear Ms. Matteo-Soehm.
This is in response to your letter dated April 29, 2009 regarding access to new
unlimited civil case files by Ms. Jullanna Krolak. representative
of Courthouse
News Service. After looking into the matter, I believe there are several
contributing factors which are creating our current situation.
In 2007 the Court implemented a new case management system, which changed
the numbering system of our case files. Instead of each case type having a
sequential numbering system, the sequential numbers now cover many different
case types including limited civil, unlimited civil, small claims. mental health, and
probate. rt is no longer possible for us to easily pull a block of sequentially
numbered files without verifying the case types first.
The Records Deparbnent not only provides access and information to the public
regarding court records, but is also responsible for pulling and preparing the
calendars for twenty-eight courtrooms daily. It has become necessary for us to
reallocate our resources in several areas of the deparbnent, and we simply don't
have the manpower to pull·an unlimited number of case files each day for all the
requests we receive. As a reeult, we have had to limit the number of files we pull
for all researchers.
Before making the change to_our policy, we did research the number of files
being pulled by several other;Southem California courts. We found that 25 nonsequentially numbered casesper'day is still generous in comparison to what
some other courts pull. ..
,
Mailing Adtlress: P.O. Box 6489. Ventura, California 93006-6489
Exhibit 2
Page 18
FER96
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document
Filed 09/29/11
8
S rior Cowl Of~
IP
.!.up- ...
Page 21 of 52
AD·
Page 10 #:301
.
COUNTY OF VENTURA
. .:.:. Hall of Justice
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura. CA 93009
Ms. Krolak's main focus appears to be new unlimited civil filings. Those case
files remain in the media bin in our Records Department for a minimum of one
week before being placed on our shelves, and are available for her to view in
addition to any other files she is requesting,
Neither Ms. Daniels nor Ms. Yost has personally spoken with Ms. Krolak about
her concerns, but Ms. Yost did speak with Mr. Christopher Marshall. They were
able to establish a procedure for Ms. Krolak, in which she would e-mail a list of
the cases she was interested in reviewing to the supervisor. and they would be
pulled and ready for her to view upon her arrival. .
For reasons unknown this practice was discontinued, but we would gladly
resume doing this for her. Our request would be that she e-mail the list at least
one full day in advance of her Visit, and send it to both of the Records
supervisors.
By doing this she could have the fUll limit of 25 files all at once, In
addition to any of the new case files that are in the media bin .
...
Those addresses are:,
Linda. Dantels@ventura.courts.ca.gov;
Leticia. Guereca@ventura.courts.ca.gov.
and
Also. our lines tend to be longer In the afternoon, as that Is when many attorney
services, along with the general public, come in to conduct their business with
the court. If possible, Ms. Krolak might consider arranging her schedule so that
she is able to visit our Records Department earlier in the day to avoid the longer
lines.
Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any further questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
U
ccf(~~
Cheryl~
Deputy Executive Officer
(805) 654-2607
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 6489, Ventura. Califom.ia 93006·6489
Exhibit 2
Page 19
FER97
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 22 of 52
Page 10 #:302
EXHIBIT 3
FER98
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 23 of 52 Page ID #:303
Courthouse News Service
July 23. 2009
Cheryl Kanatzar
Deputy Executive Officer
Superior Court of California
County of Ventura
Hall of Justice
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Re: Media Access to New Civil Filings
Dear Ms.
Kanatzar:
On behalf of Julianna Krolak and all of us at Courthouse News Service, I would like to
thank you and your professional and heIpfuJ staff for assisting us in ensuring new civil
unlimited filfngs make it to the media bin for media review before being placed on the
shelf.
. .,. ',:.
If you ever have any questions for me, I am always available and we will not hesitate to
contact you in the future if we have questions. Once again, thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely.
Chris Marshall
Northern California Bureau Chief
Enel..
bee:
B ill Girdner
Editor
JuIianna Krolak
Courthouse Reporter
Exhibit 3
Page 20
,"".
FER99
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 2 of 52 Page lD #:30
EXHIBIT 4
FER100
Case 2:11-cv-OB083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 25 of 52
Page ID #:305
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
30 N. Raymond Avenue, Silite 3 10, Pasadena CA 91103, (626) 5n-6700, home@courthooseneWS.com
Chris Marshall
Northern California Bureau Chief
Courthouse News Service
(415) 861-7361
sanfran@courthousenews.com
February 7, 2011
Cheryl Kanatzar
Court Executive Officer
Ventura County Superior Court
800 South Victoria Avenue
. Ventura, California 93009
Dear Ms. Kanatzar:
I am writing for Courthouse News Service (CNS), on behalf of reporter Julianna Krolak,
regarding media access to newly-filed civil complaints at the Ventura County Superior
Court. CoUrthouse News Service appreCiated your willingness to work with us to set up
the media. bin a few years ago and we trust we will be able to work together again in a
cooperative manner to address our present concerns.
As you may recall, Courthouse News Service is a legal news service for lawyers and the
news media. Founded in 1990, Courthouse News is similar to other news wire services,
such as the Associated Press, except that it focuses on civil lawsuits, from the date of
fIling through the appellate level. -Courthouse News does not report on criminal or family
law matters. The majority of Courthouse News' nearly 2,500 subscribers nationwide are
lawyers and law firms, including many prominent California lJID1B. However, law schools
and media outlets are increasingly looking to Courthouse News for information about
newsworthy civil filings, and include such well-known California media outlets and law
schools as the San Jose Mercury News, the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Business
Journal, UCLA Law Library, Stanford Law School, and Loyola Law School. Courthouse
News' core news publications are its new litigation reports, which are e-mailed to
subscribers daily and contain coverage of all significant newly-filed civil complaints filed
in a particular jurisdiction. In addition, Courthouse News' website
(WWW.courthollsenews.com). which features news reports and commentary about civil
cases and appeals, receives an average of 600,000 unique visitors each month.
,"\"
Until a few months ago Ms. Krolak. Iiad been \isiting the main division of the Ventura
Superior Court on a twice-a-week basis to review new civil unlimited complaints
(Courthouse News does not cover criminal or family actions, nor does it review limited
civil actions). In recognition of the increasing importance of Ventura County as a source
of newsworthy litigation, Ms. Krolak began visiting the Court on a daily basis in
November, with each of her visits occurring near the end of each court day.
Exhibit 4
Page 21
FER101
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 2 of 52 Page ID #:30
Given these now-daily visits, Courthouse ~e.ws hoped that it would be able to review and
report on new civil complaints at t;he end of the same day OIl which those complaints a;re
filed. This same-day access is provided to news reporters who make daily visits to other
major superior courts. including the California Superior Courts in Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Francisco, and Santa Clara, as well as other major courts across the nation.
A survey that further describes the same-day access that news reporters have in other
courts is enclosed for your review.
Unfortunately, access to new civil complaints at the Ventura County Superior Court is
nowhere near same-day. In a recent one-week survey of unlimited jurisdiction cases
covered by Courthouse News. Ms. Krolak saw only one case on the day it was filed.
Of the remaining cases, a majority was three days to one week old and a large minority
was one to two weeks old.
For example, a case against Rubio's Restaurant alleging sexual harassment (56-201000387332) was not made available for media review until 13 days after it was filed; a
complaint claiming The Bonaventure denied a worker's medical leave request (56-201000387945) was not available until 8 days after the filing date; another complaint charging
Rite-Aid with refusing to accommodate a worker's medical restrictions (56-2010·
00387942) was delayed by 9 days and finally a complaint where an investor allegedly took
advantage of the elderly (56-2011-00389425)
was not made available untill3 days after it was
filed.
.c
" .
•
"J':
.~ ...
I: .. 'l.
In an age where the average news cycle is Iess than 24-hoUIS, these delays eliminate the
newsworthy nature of new cases filed in this court.
In most courts that Courthouse News visits on a daily basis we have been able to work
with staff to ensure that we have access to all newly-filed civil unlimited cases on the day
they are flled,
I recently spoke with Leticia Tueraca., Records Division Supervisor, about achieving
access to cases on the day they are filed. While Ms. Tueraca was helpful and willing to
adjust procedures to assist our endeavor. she told me that ultimately it was not in her
power to affect a switch to same-day access as almost every case does not make it to the
Records Division until days after it is filed. Courthouse News thus requests your
assistance in setting up procedures to ensure access to newly-filed complaints on the day
they are :ftIed for any media entity that assigns a reporter to cover the courthouse on a
daily basis, regardless of whether all administrative tasks associated with those cases
have been completed.
The current use of a media bin could be incorporated into these procedures. One possible
solution would be for the media bin to be placed in the Civil Division where the intake
counters are located, which M~. ~o,4tk could ~access near the end of the day. Such a
system would allow Ms. Krolak access to cases' soon after they are filed without requiring
the court to speed up processing, which Courtfiouse News is not requesting. In fact it has
been Courthouse News' experience that attenwts to speed up processing rarely result in
Exhibit 4
Page 22
FER102
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 2 of 52 Page ID #:30
lasting results, due to staff sick days, vacations, breaks and other variations in work
schedules. Courthouse News welcomes the opportunity to discuss procedures that will
ensure access to unlimited civil cases on tb.eday they are filed,
While I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that the law provides for a right of timely
access to new court filings, and that the law also recognizes it is appropriate to create
special access procedures for the media so they can convey that information to other
interested members of the legal.jacademic and business communities .
• ~"I
","
••
_ •
•
many
As shown in the enclosed survey,
othe~ courts in California and around the nation
have set up systems to allow members of the "media to review newly-filed cases on the
day they are filed, regardless of whether all of the administrative tasks associated with
new complaint intake have been completed.
Courthouse News Service has worked cooperatively with courts across the country to
ensure all members of the media are able to access civil complaints on the day they are
filed. We are confident that by working together we can find a solution to ensure similar
timely access at the Ventura County Superior Court. To this end, Ms. Krolak. and I would
gladly meet with you to discuss ways to secure that access at this court.
Sincerely,
Chris Marshall
Enclosure
cc:
William Girdner, Editor, t~onrtbouse News Service
Rachel Matteo-Boehm, ESq~~:"Holme~oberts & Owen lLP
.,
I
1
• I':"
Exhibit 4
Page 23
FER103
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 28 of 52
Page 10 #:308
EXllffiIT5
FER104
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 29 of 52 Page ID #:309
Holme Rohem & OwenLLP
Atromey.r at LallI
SAN FRANCISCO
June 20, 2011
Michael Planet
Court Executive Officer
BOULDER
Ventura County Superior Court
800 South Victoria AYe.
Ventura, CA 93009
Re:
Media Access to New Complaints
COLORADO SPRINGS
Dear
OUBUN
Mr. Planet:
As you may recall., we represent Courthouse News Service, a nationwide news service for
lawyers and the news media. Over the past two years. Courthouse News has written to and
met with various officials at this Court regarding delays in access to newly filed civil
unlimited complaints. Although your office has undertaken to decrease the amount ofUme
between the:tiling ora complaim and its availability to:members of the news media, news
reporters are rarely permitted to see any new civil complaints on the same day they III'C
filed. Rather. delays in access range aJlywhere from one day to scveral weeks.
It appears that the Court Is not currently releasing newly filed complaints for press review
until after a certain emouet-of'processlng has been completed. However, as explained
below. the press's right of ac:c~ to court records is not dependent on a. court having
completed processing; Indeed, the delays at this Court are effectively denials of access,
and are contrary to the fundamentally public nature of adjudicative court records and the
media's legitimate interest.in timely access to those records.
l06ANGELES
SAlT LAKE CITY
We therefore respectfully ask that you address these delays immediately by adopting
simple procedures to ensure tbat members of the media have access to new complaints on
the same day they are filed.
About Courthouse
News Senriee
Courthouse News Service is a 21-year-old, Pasadena-based legal news service for lawyers
and the news media. It is similar to other news wire services, such as the Associated Press,
except that it focuses on civil lawsuits, from the date of filing through the appellate level.
Courthouse News does not report on criminal or family law matters, and in Califomia it
focuses only on UDlimited jurisdiction civil cases.
Racher Matteo-Boehm 415.268.1996 racheJ.mafteo..boehm@hro.com
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor .San Francisco, CaIfomla 94105-2994 tel 415.26a.2OIlO fax 415.268.1999
Exhibit 5
Page 24
FER105
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 30 of 52 Page 10 #:310
Ho1me Roberts & Owen UP"
A~at!ADJ
Michael Planet
June 20, 2011
Page 2
The majority of CourthouseNewa' nearly 3,000 subscribers nationwide are lawyers and
law firms, inoludingnumerous 'prominerit California finns. In addition, other news outlets
are increasingly looking to Cowthouse News to provide them with lnformarion about
newBWorthy new civil filings. Courthouse News' media subscribers include Such wellknown entities as the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Bustness Journal, the San Jose
Mercury News, and Forbes. all ofwhich puts Courthouse News in a position simi.l.ar to that
of a pool reporter. Courthouse News' core news publications are its new litigation reports,
which are e-mailed to subscribers daily and contain coverage of all significant new civil
complaints. Its website, www.courthousenews.com.alsofea.tu.re5
news reports and
commentary .about civil cases and appeals, and receives an average of 850,000 unique
, visitors each month.
Access to Court Records at
vootura
County Superior Court
Courthouse News' reporter ]ultanna Krolak has covered the Ventura County Superior
Court since 2003. Until recently, Ms. Krolak visited the court twice each week to review
new civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints. In recognition oftbe growing importance of
this Court, starting in November 2010, Ms. Krolak began visiting the Court on a dally
basis.
Up until early 2008, Ms. Krolak was able to review the vast majority of new complaints
filed since her prior visit, This was achie\red through a combination of a media bin
procedure (which, at the time, tbntamed kmplaints that the Court detem1incd would be of
interest to the press) as well as the clerk'! office's practice ofprov:iding Ms. Krolak with
all additional complaints falling within a specific number range, since cases are numbered
sequentially. In general, these procedures allowed Ms. Krolak to review all of the
newsworthy unlimited jurisdiction complaints filed since her previous visit without
imposing any apparent burden on court staff.
Beginning in 2008, however. media access at the Court began to deteriorate OD a number
affronts. Among othertbings. the clerk's office began limiting the number of files that
members of the media could request to 25 each day, and only pemrltted reporters to request
:five at a time, which meant Ms. Krolak had to wait in line - usually for at least 30 minutes,
and sometimes more than an hour - to ask for each batch offive cases. Each requested
case counted toward her 2S-file limit, even if the complaint was not made available for
Exhibit 5
Page 25
,-
,
FER106
Case 2:11-cv-OB083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 31 of 52
Page ID #:311
Holme Roberts & Owen I.J.r
AttoflUO'l at La/JI
Michael Planet
June 20, 2011
Page 3
review. and Court staff sometimes counted every case in the media bin toward Ms.
Krolak's 25-case quota. Since there were often more than 50 potentially newsworthy civil
unlimited cases filed in any given week, the 25-file limit frequently prevented Ms. Krolak
from reviewing and reporting on all of1he week's newsworthy filings, thereby resulting in
significant delays in access ~onewly filed clvil complaints.
Courthouse News' Northem'Califbmia Bureau Chle:( Chris Marshall, attempted at various
times to resolve theseIssues with Supeniisor Linda Daniels, as well as Records Mmager
Peggy Yost, but these efforts proved unsuccessful, Thereafter. in April 2009. we wrote to
you, We subsequently spoke on the phone. together with Deputy Court Executive Officer
Cheryl Kanatzar, about potential solutions to the access problems. In June 2009, Ms.
Kanatzar, as well as Ms. Yost and Ms. Dantels, met in person with Mr. Marshall to further
discuss potential solutions. The solution uItimate1y devised by the Court involved placing
newly :filed civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints directly into the media bin for review
only after minimal processing. Ms. Krolak: would be permitted access to all of the
complaints contained in the media bin, as well as Up to 25 additional complaints, per visit,
from the shelves. Of the additional 25 complaints that Ms. Krolak would be pennitted to
request. she could on1y access five complaints at a time.
While these procedures initially worked reasonably well to provide Ms. Krolak. with timely
access to newly filed complaints. access again quickly deteriorated, as it seemed that the
clerks were waiting until newly filed complaints were fully processed before placing them
inthe media bin (contrary to the agreement that new complaints would be placed in the bin
after just minimal processing). The deterioration of the media bin procedure led to a
bacldog of newly filed unlimited civil jurisdiction wmplaints that Ms. Krolak needed to
review, and she therefore had to request numerous additiooal complaints as part ofher
daily reporting activities. On many of her visits. she found that she had to request up to 2S
complaints (her limit for ~as.es~~ were qat contained in the media bin) in order to see the
entire :Dowof newly :qled unliliiited civil JUrisdiction complaints. standing ina new and
lengthy line for each group of five complamts she wished to review. Even with respect to
those 25 additional complaints she requested, many were not available, with delays in
access ranging for the most part from one to three days, but sometimes significantly
longer.
Exhibit 5
Page 26
FER107
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 32 of 52 Page 10 #:312
HolmeRoberts & Owen W"
AttomepatLaw
or
I.
~,:~-I.
': .4
j
~~ "
I
t
,
Michael Planet
June 20, 2011
Page 4
As noted. late last year, Courthouse News began covering the Court OD a daily basis.
Given the ongoing delays and problems with the media bin procedure. Mr. Marshall
contacted Ms. Kanatzar by letter in February 2011 inan attempt to come up with mutually
agreeable procedures that would provide same-day access to all newly filed UDlimited civil
jurisdiction complaints, and Ms. Kanatzar spoke with Mr. Marshall by phone in early
Match 2011 to discuss options. Whlle Ms. Kanat2ar indicated a. desire 10 improve on the
delays, the message conveyed to Courthouse News was that the clerk's office would not
provide same-day access to newly tiled unlimited jurisdiction civil complaints. At best,
the Court would attempt to provide next-day access. Mr. Maxsball was disappointed to
hear this. but agreed to wait and see what solution the Court came up with to resolve
delays. Subsequently, Ms. Kanatzar left Mr. MIIrShalI a voice mail message advising him
that beginning on March 14,2011, the clerks would reprioritize how cases are processed,
and Courthouse News should begin seeing complaints witbUl. two days of filing.
Over the past three months. Courthouse News has monitored the availability of complaints
to determine what effect, if,any, the ~J)Iocedures
wou1d have .in terms of delays in
access. Unfortunately. tbiD.gs Gave goDf:;".frombad to worse. with 81lIDCRday access to new
complaints a rare occurrence.l Rather, aCtual delays in access are anywhere between one
day and several weeks after :filing for virtually all civil UDlimited jwisdiction complainm
filed in this Court.
Timeq Aa:ess. Te All New Civil Court Filings
There b A Right Of Attess. And
As we have related to you in om previous correspondence and discussions, the press has 'a
presumptive, constitutional right of timely access 10 newly filed complaints, which
necessariJ; means same-day access. NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-Tfi), Inc. v. Superlur Court,
20 Cal. 4 1178.1208 &n.2S (1999) (recognizing.FirstAmendmentrigbtofacceasto
civil
litigation docmnents submitted to a court as a basis for adjudication); Associated Press v.
District Court, 705 F.2d 1143. 1147 (9t11 Cir. 1983)(even short delays in access
constitute "a total restraint on the public's first amendment right of access even though the
restraint is limited in timej; Grewe Fresh Distrios., Inc. v. Ever,fresh Juice Co ...24 F.3d
u.s.
1
During one recent four-week period, only one complaint out of 14S was available for
review on the same day it was filed,
(.
e.
Exhibit 5
Page 27
FER108
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 33 of 52 ·Page 10 #:313
Holme Roberts & Owen:r.rr
Au.o~":I atLaw
Michael Planet
June 20, 2011
PageS
893, 897 (7th Cir, 1994) ("[i]n light of values which the presumption of access endeavors
to promote. a necessary corollary to the presumption is that once found to be appropriate,
access should be immediate and contemporaneous''); Globe Newsp4pel' Co. v. Pokaski,
868 F .2d 497. 507 (1st Cir, 1989) ("even a one to two day delay impermissibly burdens the
First Amendment"); Courthouse News Servia! v. Jackson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6230D,
at *10.11, 14 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("the 24 to 72 hour delay in access is effectively a denial of
access and is. therefore, unconstitutional").
Likewise, once a record has been filed or lodged with the court, Rule ofCourt2.550(c)
provides that the record is "presumed to be open" to public inspection. The Rule of Court
thus recognizes that the public character of new complaints comes not from the com's
taking any particular action wim respect to a complaint, but from a person's invoking the
power of the judiciary by submitting it to the court. See also Bank of 'Am:Nat '1 Trust & .
Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse ASSOC3•• 800 F.2d 339~ 344 (3d Cir. 1986) (the right of
access springs .into being the moment a person ''uDdertake[s] to utilize the judicial
process"); Leucadia, Inc .... Applied Extrusion Techs..• Inc; 998 F.2d 157. 164 (3d Cir.
1993) C'By submJttiRg pleadings and motions to the court for decision, one ... exposes
mmself[toJ public scrutiny.j (quotation omitted; emph. added).
access, it" is not appropriate for this Court to deny media requests to
examine newly filed. 'complaints on the ground that the Court has not yet completed its
administrative tasks essociated with the processing of those complaints (tasks that vary
from court to court. but ca.n include such items as inputting infonnatian about the
complaint into a computer system, fonnal acceptance, scanning, and/or posting the
complaint online for remote viewing). As you can see from the enclosed city-by-city
survey, courts around the country have implemented 11 variety of procedures to ensure that
the press has access to all new civil complaints at the end of the day on which those
complaints are filed. regardless of whether they have been fully processed andIor other
administrative procedures have been completed. Indeed, given the media's role as
"SUIIOga1:e$ for the public," see, e.g., Richmond New3papers, Inc. v. Virginia. 448 U.S.
555, 513 (1980). it is appropriate to provide news reporters who visit the Court every day
with procedures for obtaining same-day access to new filings, so that those reporters may
in tum disseminate information about those filings to interested persons, thereby keeping
the public informed as to what transpires in the courts.
In light of this right of
"~
.
Exhibit 5
Page 28
FER109
- ,
.
"\~
Case 2:11-cv-OB083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Fjled 09/29/11
Page 3 of 52
Page ID #:31
Hohne Roberts & Owen ILP"
Atto~atLaw
Michael Planet
JWle20,2011
Page 6
With these considerations in mind, Courthouse News once again respectfully requests that
the Court adopt procedures to ensure that reporters who visit the court every day (which
would include but not necessarily be limited to Courthouse News) can review new
unlimited civil complaints at tQe end of J;:be day they are filed, even if they have not been
fully processed. As the enclosed sUrvey. demonstrates, there are It. variety of specific ways
this can be accomplished, but :fundamenl:ally, what we are asking for is fur Ms. Krolak to
simply he allowed to see the day's new unlimited civil filings at the end of each court day.
We thank you for your attention to this important manner, and look forward to hearing
from you.
.
Rachel Maneo-Boehm
cc:
The Honorable Vincent O'Neill, Jr., Presiding Judge
Courthouse News Service
Exhibit 5
Page 29
FER110
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
~:.
Filed 09/29/11
.
~j..-
Prepared
Page to #:315
I
"
Media Access to
Page 35 of 52
,
Courts
Around the Nation
By Co11l1house News Service
June2011
Courts around the country have developed a variety of procedures to provide the media with
access to new civil case initiating documents (complaints or petitions. depending on the
jurisdiction) on the same day they are filed. regardless of whether processing has been
completed (or in federal courts that have adopted e-filing. the so-called "quality assurance"
process is completed). and regardless ofwhether the eomplaint or petition has been made
available for electronic viewing. Courthouse News Service has prepared the following
summa.ry of some of these same-day access procedures adopted in courts throughout tbe nation.
Albuquerque
At the Second District Court of New Mexico (Bernalillo County), both paper and electronically
filed civil complaints are made available to the media in a "review pile" on the day of filing.
before they have been fully processed or made available to the public. Courthouse News'
reporter has been granted behind-the-couater
access to the "review pile" and provided with a
small work space, where he can review the new cases and SCaJl any ne~orthy
complaint
using a portable scanner. Any complaint that does not make it to the review pile enters a 3 - 4
day docketing process, during whiCh Courthous. News Service's reporter can typically track
dawn any case that needs to be seen.
Atlanta
At the Fu1ton County Superior Court in Atlanta. Georgia, new complaints are scanned
immediately upon filing and JDade available at computer terminals at the courthouse. most
within minutes of filing. In addition, complete docket infonnation for civil cases is available
from a publicly accessible web site on the day the complaint is filed.
At the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where e-filing is
voluntary, reporters review new civil actions on the same day they are :filed. New complaints
that are filed in paper form are scanned into a computerized press box before they go to
docketing and are accessible on a computer terminal in the Clerk's office. B-filed complaints
are made available to CNS's reporter. prior to any processing, via PACER by using a shell case
number code to access an online press queue ofnsw same-day filings.
At the Travis County District Co.use in Austin, "Where e-filing is mandatory fur civil cases,
Courthouse News' reporter gets a ~ o~ aU of "titer new civil petitions filed earlier that same day
upon arriving at the courthouse, She then
"p.ewlyfiled petitions using a public access
terminal at the courthouse. Before leavmg the court, Courthouse NevJ5' reporter gets an
updated copy of the list of newly filed petitions to see whether !here are any that have been
filed since her first review. which she also views using the court's public access terminal.
v~
Media Access to Courts Around 1hc Million
Pagel
11617.7 .. 1 .....
Exhibit 5
Page 30
FER111
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 3 of 52 Page ID #:31
Beanmont
At the Jefferson County District Court :in Beaumont, Texas, reporters are allowed behind the
counter to access paper copies of petitions :filed that day. before the cases are put through the
docketing process. Reporters cair'1nake copies.of'newswcrthy cases.
~c
~~.
v •
-"1
At the Beaumont Division of the United Sta.tes;bistrict Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
reporters have same-day access to new1y filed actions regardless ofwhetber docketing has been
completed. Reporters review scanned copies of new complaints via PACER, and if a Dew case
is nat yet scanned and available on the court's computer system, reporters can request and ale
given a paper copy of the new action based on II listing ofnew filings in a red log book made
available to the press.
Brooklyn
At the Kings County Supreme Court. newly filed cases are typically scanned into electronic
fonn immediately after they are filed, and the paper copies are then placed in a designated
media box for same day review. However, in the event that a new complaint is not scanned
until the fonowing day, the paper copy remains in the press box until Courthouse News'
reporter has reviewed it. Courthouse News' reporter has been provided with a media pass that
allows her to remove the new filings from the media box and review them ina different area
behind the counter in the clerk's office on the same day the complaints are filed. Cowtbouse
News' reporter is free to make her own copies for a small fee.
At the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, parties file "press
copies" of new complaints, whicb;·~ pl.acecljnto a press box that is made available to reporters
throughout the day. thereby a]IOwing .1lWmsaine-day access to the vast majority ofnew filings,
even iftbe new filings bave .not been' fully peocessed or posted to PACER.
i
ChieB£O
; !
At the Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Courthouse News' reporter, or any other
member of the media who is first to enive at the courthouse, begins each visit by going behind
the counter to pick up the day' B new complaints, and then brings them to a press room located
inthe same building. The reporter sees complaintS on the same day they are filed, regardless of
whether the complaints have been fully processed. Reporters can stay as late as 1hey like to
review the new complaints.
At the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where newly filed
complaints are available on a same-day basis, the court had previously provided the media with
a special case number code for the PACER web site that granted reporters access to a press
queue where the new complaints were posted before they had even been assigned a case
number or appeared on the public PACER website. However, the Court is now making newlyfiled civil complaints Immediately available on PACER, as well as the court's own independent
website. making access to the press queue unnecessary.
.'
r-
Media Access to Courts Around tbe NittiOil
·Ll.·· :
Page 2
H6Z7~vl.t
.'~
Exhibit 5
Page 31
FER112
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 3 of 52 Page to #:31
Cincinnati
At the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati. Ohio, new complaints are
placed in the intake area for review by the media on the same day the complaintS are filed.
Complaints are made available after they have been date-stamped, but before any other
processing occurs. Courthouse News' reporter sees between 30-60 complaints each day. If
Courthouse News' reporter misses a complaint. he may request the file from the paper room
staff the next day. Court employees will make copies of newsworthy complaints available
upon request for 10 cents per page.
At the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, lmUJY of the newly:filed
complaints are made available on the day of filing via PACER However. for cases not
available electronically, the oomtplaces a copi:of new cases into a press box at the intake
counter, where Courthouse News Services' repOrter may review them until 4:00 p.m. when the
court closes to the public. The reporter may request copies of new oomplaints for 50 cents per
page,
Cleveland
At the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio. Courthouse News'
reporter has behind-tae-counter access to new filings on the same day they are filed, regardless
ofwbetber they have been fully processed. Complaints are available as soon as they have been
da.te-stamped. Court officials provide Courthouse News' reporter with desk space 10 set up a
laptop and allow him use of the office copy machines,
"
At the United States District Court for the N orthem District of Ohio, new civil cases can be
filed either in person or electronically. Both cesea filed e1ectronically and in person are made
available on PACER on the same day they arc filed. However, to view cases that are restricted
from access via PACER or cases that have not yet been posted to PACER, Courthouse News'
reporter visits the courthouse, where the court staffwi11 print out a copy of any case he
requests, even if docketing has not been completed and regardless of how those complaints
were filed.
~
, .'1"
1.:0-
J
" """:,A." .c;,0lu.nibas
i~·
~
At the Franklin County Courtof Common PleasIn Columbus, Ohio, Courthouse News:"
reporter bas same-day access to new civil complaints after they have been date-stamped and
before processing. Courthouse News' reporter works at a desk behind "theintake counter.
Complaints that are filed before the reporter arrives to the courthouse me placed in au. "outbox"
tray where eNS's reporter is able to review them on the same day they are filed. Once the
reporter has finished reviewing those cases, a member of the court staffretrieves complaints
that have been filed since the reporter's arriVl1ldirectly from the various tellers and makes them
available for immedia~ review. Copies are available for a nominal fee.
At the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Columbus, all new
complaints are made available on PACER promptly upon filing. The court will also provide
MediaAoeess to courts Around the Nation
Page)
1I~747vlnf
Exhibit 5
Page 32
FER113
Case2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
DocumentS
",
,
'"
Filed 09/29/11
Page38of52
PageID#:318
' ,~
'
hard copies of any civil filings not available ouiPACER on a same-day basis, but the speed with
which cases are posted to PACER generally makes this unnecessary.
;
Atthe Dallas County District Court in Dallas, Texas, Courthouse News' reporter is provided
with behind-The-counter access 10 new petitions as soon as they are filed and before any
docketing has taken place. The court provides the reporter with a place to work, where staffers
in the clerk's office provide him with. access to the new petitions filed in paper fonn. As for efiled petitions; Courthouse News Service's reporter views some on a computer terminal in the
elm's office. In many instances, however. petitions are not available on the terminal on a
same-day basis, and the clerk's office provides him with paper printouts of those petitions so
that he can see them same-day,
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas has developed a process that
ensures reporters have same-day access to all new complaints, regardless of how far those
complaints have progressed through the intake process. On his daily afternoon visits to the
court, Courthouse News' reporter goes through a three-step process, described below. Leigh
Lyon, Assistant Chief Deputy ofOpemtions, Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas.
has informed us that she would be .happy to speak with court officials in other jurisdictions
about this system. Ms. Lyon can be:reached at ~2l4) 753-2186.
•
First. Courthouse N~~' reporter checks; a computer termina1 in the clerk's office to
view summaries of the day's new complaints that have already been made available on
PACER. Courthouse News' repcrter thenuses his own intemet connection to
immediately download documents he needs to hia laptop computer at the courthouse.
•
Second, Courthouse News' reporter checks for complaints that have been scanned by
the clerk's office. but are not yet available on PACER. These complamts have been
assigned a bar code and case number. and are made available for electronic viewing at a
public computer kiosk located in the clerk's office, where the media can then review the
new complaints on the same day they are filed.
•
Finally, for complaints that are so DeW they have not yet been scanned, Courthouse
News' reporter views the paper versions of'those new cases in their case folder and
makes copies ofnewswortby complaints.
At the Wayne County Circuit Court:, complaints are placed in a drawer in the intake area of the
clerk's office immediately after they! ate filed • .upon arriving at the clerk's office at
approximately 3 p.m., Courthouse lj,~: repoI:tc;rgoes behind the counter and first doublechecks the previous day's complaints, which are located in bundled folders behind the intake
drawer, for any missed or lasi::'minute filings
the day before. Then he turns to the intake
dmwer. 'Where he is pennitted to review the newly filed complaints while standing behind the
counter. Most new complaints are in the drawer. but some are with the intake clerks, who will
share 'the complaints with the reporter for review. The reporter is permitted to make his own
from
Media Access
to
Courts Around tho Nation
'rn~'I'lraf
Exhibit 5
Page 33
FER114
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 39 of 52
Page 10 #:319
copies of complaints using a copi"if located also behind the counter, as well as an alternate
copier on the other side of the ~aspelj:l..statioll,Il~~ar death certi:ficates/marriage llcense area.
the
c"
for
'\
At the United States District CO}lrt
the Eastem District of Michigan. the court provides
copies, on a same-day basis, of all newly filed complaints in a media box located in a public
area. but ODly after the complaints have been fully docketed. Courthouse News' reporter can
either visit the courthouse to view complaints or he can view the new filings electronically on
PACER, which ls just as timely as the hard copy press box.
I1'ortWortb
At the Tarrant County District Court in Fort Worth. most petitions appear on the court's on-line
system the day they are filed, except those cases that are filed electronically after 5:00 p.m.,
when the court is closed, which are made available the following day. If any petition that was
filed during court business hours is not available online the day it is filed, court staff either
make a copy for Courthouse News' reporter or arranges for the petition to be immediately
scanned and posted to the on-line access system. The end resn1t is that Courthouse News'
reporter is able to access all petitions filed during court hours on the same day they are filed.
Houston
The Harris County Civil District Courts in Houston provided same-day access for many years
belriIiti the in~ counters and review newly-filed petitions. In
2008, the clerk. began requiring"i·epbrters to wwl until new petitions had been processed and
posted on the clerk's web site beforetbeycOuId.j;e reviewed, which delayed their availability
by a day or more - sometimes several days. After repeated attempts by Courthouse News to
negotiate a solution 'With the clerk's office failed to lead to a resolution, Courthouse News
reluctantly:filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In July 2009, the U.S. District Court fOT the
Southern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction ordering the clerk to provide S8IIl~
day access to civil petitions, and :finding that '"the 24 to 72 hour delay in access is effectively a
denial of access and is, therefore, unconstitutional," Courthouse News Service v. Jackson, et
al., 2009 WL 2163609, at *4 (S.D. Tex. July 20, 2009). Inaccordance with that injunction
order, the clerk's office began scanning new petitions and posting them to the clerk's web site
the same day they are filed. Pursuant to a stipulated permanent injunction entered by the court
in March 2010, the clerk's office became obligated not only to continue to provide same-day
access to new civil filings, but to pay more than $250,000 to Courthouse News to compensate it
for the attomeys fees it Incurred in litigating the case.: The stipulated permanent injunction did
not specify the particular manner in which same-day access must be provided. and the clerk's
office bas chosen to comply with the order by continuing its practice of posting new petitions
on the clerk's web site. Those petitions can be viewed, and printouts can be made, free of
charge by the media and other interested parties on the day of:6ling. After that. petitions can
still be viewed without charge, but printouts can be made only if1hey have not been certified.
Once they are certified - which usually occurs the day after filing - there is a fee to print out
copies of the petitions. Details abqpt:this program can be found OD the Harris County District
Clerk's web site, at http;/Iwww.hcdiStIi:ctc1erk~~cOmIEdocsIPub1ic/search.aspx (see button:
"Search Today's Filings'1, ,
" ''''".
. .,
by permitting reporters to go
Media A=
to
courts Around the Nation
Pagtl5
_62147 vi oof
Exhibit 5
Page 34
FER115
Case 2:11~cv~080B3~R -MAN
Document 8
Filed 09/29/11
Page 0 of 52
Page ID #:320
At the United States District Cowt fu.r the Southem District of Texas, where electronic filing is
required for new cases, Courthouse News' reporter can view electronic versions of'compleinrs
that are already docketed and posted to PACER on the same day they are filed. For any new
complaint that has not yet been fully docketed, the Court will usually provide a hard copy
regardless of how far along the complaint is in the docketing process. also on the same da.y they
are filed.
IndianapoUs
At the Marion County Circuit and. Superior Courts in Indianapolis, Indiana. reporters view all
new filings on a same-day basis bi the clerk's office. Reporters are given stacks of the new
filings, before they are processed or sent to the proper court division, and are allowed to go
through them at tables in the public viewing mea from 4:00 p.m, to 4:30 p.m. Reporters can
then make copies themselves on court copy machines, which are then billed to Courthouse
News Service monthly.
At the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. reporters are provided
with access to alI complaints filed 011 a same-day basis. even if docketing has not been
completed. When Courthouse News' reporter arrives at the end of the day, the court staff
gathers all of the civil cases :filed tbroughout the day and allows the reporter to review the
complaints. The court staffwill then make copies: at a tate of 50 cents per page.
Las
VegaS
At the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Yegas, Nevada, reporters saw the majority of new
civil complaints on a same-day basis until the court switched to mandatory e-filing in February
2010. Following that switch, the court began requiring news reporters to review new
complaints at ft computer tenninal in the clerk's office, but this system resulted in complaints
not being available for viewing until the day after they were filed. The reason for these delays
was that new complaints did not appear on the computer temrlnals until after they had been
"accepted" by the clerk's otfice, aDd only after the terminals had been updated to reflect the
new filings. After Courthouse News 1:iroughtth~ delays to the attention of the court, the court
adopted a new system: an electronic in-box, through which complaints can be viewed on a
computer terminal as soon as they cross the electronic version of the intake counter at the
clerk's office, even if they have not yet been fully processed. Through this system, which is
similar to the electronic in-box access procedures in place at numerous federal district courts
(many of which are described in this survey), Courthouse News is now seeing new e-filed
complaints on a same-day basis.
~
L~.
-\.
At the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Courthouse News' reporter can
view electronic versions of the ~ority of new complaints en a same-day basis on PACER.
Complaints that are not made available on the day they are filed are UBually made available on
the following day.
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
1I6l747 vl
Page 6
...r
Exhibit 5
.'
~.
~ -=t'
.")
Page 35
._
FER116
",
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R
.:';'-h
·f
-MAN .Doc~m;~nt:a
Filed 09/29/11
Page
1 of 52
Page ID #:321
1
L08Aogeles
At the Downtown (Stanley Mosk Courthouse) branch of the Superior Court of California in Los
Angeles, reporters can review all new actions that are filed on a particular day through the
court's computer system. which includes terminals for the general public and additional
terminals in. a designated press room. Both the filing room - including the intake and
processing areas - and the area inwhich the general public view cases close at 4;30 p.m., but
the press room remains open later and even the latest filiDgs of the day are available and can be
reviewed by 7:00 p.m, About 90 new civil, general jurisdiction cases are filed each day.
At the Santa Monica Courthouse of the same court, face pages of each day's newly-filed
complaints are made available for review at 3:30 p.m. on the same day the complaints are filed.
Courthouse News' reporter then requests copies of those complaints for which she wants to see
the full-text versions. The full text oflate-fUed complaints is made available at 4;30 p.m .•
when the filing room court closes jt.s doors to the public but where the courthouse employees
continue to work until 5:00 p.m. Courthouse NeWs' reporter can then request copies of any of
those late-filed complaints, and they are generally provided right away.
At the United States District com for the Central District of California, a room is set up
directly off the docketing department with a set of pass-through boxes. At 4:45 p.m., a
messenger places all of the civil complaints filed that day in the pass-through boxes so that the
media can review them. Inside the reviewing room is a copy machine maintained by the press.
Reporters that cover the courthouse on a daily basis have a key to the room, which is otherwise
locked. and they can stay as long as they want to look over the complaints and rulings, copy
those ofinterest. and put the documents back. in the pass-through boxes.
LoaisviUe
At tho Jefferson County Circuit Court in Louisville, Kentucky, the clerk's statrmakes a copy of
the front page of all complaints filed throughout the day and places the coversheets on a table
in the public area of the office. Courthouse News' reporter then reviews the stack of
coversheets and requests any complaints he determines to be newsworthy on the same day they
are filed. The clerk's office will make copies for him at a rate of25 cents per page.
The United States District Court fof.the Western District ofKemucky in Louisville has adopted
an e-filing system requiring initiati\lg dpcumen~ to be filed electronically. The court has
provided the media with an 'nl JeffroySter];ng
told afoderaljud;e th.t thattln
lour subpc ..... b. WBIIto I<> ...,...,
tile V.S, Sonate Seleot o>rnaritt ..
\VAR
juclge
8 fedorol
."""c.r
10 Dot what
an Intalllgenee
prooooulon;
p"",""",," Qr
G_
Appointment.
to
[eN] - Colifoinla """"'!"'"'" connot sua gaoolinc",tuilCIlO
over pump """"leo tj,a. alIegod1y"ir,.po"... •
smaunt of
I~de
gasdurill!: hi~.
fuel pwdJ.-, the g!h
amuit rulod'l'humdoy. G'J
.moll
1D1.nlnlouoly
U.s.
(eN)-
Amori •• lIB who Iwntod IIId
killed elldmgeted
AfII"""
d.p/IiOtltsln Zombi • .....,ot
brin~ trophle, ofth.ir prey
boclcho_.
fed=,ljodge
UniIrOroityofCollf=t.
U.s. tl>YC!11ll1"cfI5Y'="
"
'll:te
lo.dywho nmo Fu-dly ~hop I.
gomgto tt)'tD "",I« itoS8l\anline
too. AJlth"..,
JoJ>..
Down M.inS'trcm,
(CIU-Ion orbitnItioIIlrib"""l.t1h.
F'Y cbo>-ron and itileummt.""'diaJy
"fire h""'" ~oixol
...... on it.o
groUIIQ 1I0or on I.IIlln SQ"eel. An
tbat'.gon.
In ruIln~on~
rly t99OS,
d;"J>1!Ies in the ..
Taaoo
896 million
""rornerclol
=...
i"".
restaurant juol oIom! too - ga"; ilS
employee> .hall! an honr'snotie.
ami boo,,",
Th=llIwoffl"""thoth"
.... bcon
b=fot"mou1lmna~IiQn
clooool "P, 0...",verite Inill."
rosbIurant .t.x down. The MolB'.
'fi..:rn O)",od. A =taunml that
Wll9 ruined by tho fin; water ond
smol\l1,y mode • '7-yeta:roldglrl otrip1arhimlnhl."'1.UDd
..... soh. eould 'oheckfor a
Federal Court.
[CN)-Tho7lh
Cl~tsl"",lotylllade HcrStrip
By JONNV !lo~"",,,,
pi.... 111· .tt"d"aLiolylg
oiIdboI1 "-Ill hit.
lb.
By JOE CEl.ENTINO
bloek cfhusi .......
""''''.00
..."""Dnt:t
the I"edelaI gtWelIlWent to
ohango ito olecfum la..... and
8~ 1I.z PD'rClCSNAK
By RO~5RT K~tlIrt tin;; with
applBu!;e .. tho cmnml.lslO)] on
_""ed
rolig;.,n;n Montana .. nnat
smoke_rijllan. duri1lj\ ilio
probotioll. tho9tbCl",llitIUbl
Tbund.y. G
ar RyAN ""'mOTT
Fud RIDt!IOm for Premium
'~INGP
_~~HE
of.eannabis-/).,ed
BODlG-~ Can't~
liIepbaDt Co>"l"'''"
_
ByJAI..,EA088
&hlng"
By MAR .... DINZEO
Judioi.l
celebrant
...
P-
ofV~1I:Ighb
"rTL!oII1UI!.
(eN) -A 00JJVIcted Dleth
deal ... who ol.lnlsID boo
AlJ!XAND1UA. v.. (CIIl}-
STArE
~~
. Pat-1I11ftIIIilllltlial
LoIotUpclal.: 4:31 FM PI"
2011
Sterling Balks at Prosecutor's
'Fishing Expedition' Allegations
Stand
ADAM KI..ASf'aD
MANHATIAN (eN) • Bob
Marloy'.milowond
rt Han. Redw:e,
lWue. ReqeleEtho>s
IIY SONYA ANGELICA tJlEl-i~
BONN, Gwmomy(CN)-
Be_.~lid-wasto
m.".mentmthe Kuropeon
U"l(m coroId "'" 8G nillli""
of -"'on
di"';do
equiwlel1t, .IlI!bl"dingto.
.-.port fu>m thel!lJropeom
t"",.
&"';IOJIIIIonl
A.!;
T_Stripa
Upl"doibymp
"gstational
By CJW.E~O""
oy. (]
Feeo
Cotu-t
tANGFO.EW
(eN) • Tit_ Texat
earrler.'"
,","
SUpreme
Caw! uphold a lawthatfo:ro=
w;p o]Qb. ..... "Ilh m..n_
WbelGtan_ Brook jlllDl"'d ito banle
ollll fjllod..n the _men'"
0" fllio!
Btrectwlth water OIla their ~d
\loon with mud; Now Engllll)d
Toutb"fhe:ater~ amaehl:ne sbop.1I.
mw l"'b and nobQRl:l\, ... lnJiOl1
Impart shop.1ho
Movi~~""
&~~:ay.~~G....ned.'D~~
earthquake
~t-~~SeardJ
",
::::
It·.ha>d
tn VermoDt are elill eutofffrom
awrytbi~
HJ6.d.$ out. nl)plMlet) IKI
foo~ ",""",th0J hike out oftbc
mD1JDJ:a.i:mfod
gwmod dO\'m ln~ling
marijuana grow
on p_ti,.,!= \"",1, the
AmfvIB.'a
repons or.
1Ium..nm..-8lllI1dord
Mol~·. .t
~
HlIWIhorne TIm ..... CQrnPIUIf
told the Tim •• -/lb"ul.'" that.
mon ·"""".dfire on the poi.
with .l.igh-powerod >ille,
Hporled.
hitlln;: MeJo IJillltiple tlmos."
:£~~aA
_a.
wnsplring to commituMWt
With. deadly weapon,
work.
B. alom.. tb. d...... I .. id, "As lo.g e, 1M~rh onoln moes,
y - 0,.Q
they don't li~ 11-Th. New Bern{i'Sd:i"'iD!"Irl~\' Dew
ilmplD}'CGH"'Ifll1.ok tokes _
today fJ'h~y);
tea.""".
CItUittberrU;lst"punitiveuinthe:9f:Ite.
G!J
Ul1IIr
ton3Ol'VBu.e "'''''''''' cloIms th.
Ohio Llb grind "!'
e>Jn of
Ilring If they refuood. g
lmfdl; "l"nIdiPg
NEWARK - Jomes If. 'rum ..
n ODd hiI=npany, (ley
Caplial Mano",men~ rellped
$3-9 ",~BOJ\ln "illicilg';"""
m,m Imlde tnodIn: (OTl'drn ..
and hia""hort.,
InoludiOj;Saml
A VoUrnor,5<'>ttA. &Obm",
'''Q!\lotl< "- D ....mn, tho SEC
--.0
v.iolates its
_e~llIDlI
MANHATIANAnthoqy
S",I_Jr_""d Piaro""Obocl<;
CapituIMan"!ement. wb.~he
IDS ANGELES
root"""
monoy_ a..tt .... h..., even ",ore
penv:nal ~
ond poli1i.&
tho 2nd =uil
l
allYlJlore by
ThM's JU>n>O:I1SO. The Uniled
StD.t ... l. not"",1«o. OUr gl'O$S
dCll1lllSllcJll'oouct is IItOWlQ SIS
rec.retUD'llDI
trod.......l<-l]
.omIrumd to bollor ibat ..... 0QllIltry
isbrokc, Ih~t weconnatofford to
WD1.., ..
oJ"'"
paitYo.:t81iticn
poll1iciJms ofolllrttip"1,
blJl
partloula~yofDne
stripe, he",
0""" wean.. than it oInady Is.
eatencsln a lI'1PewBl'tmn half of1hem, I
b.~
WhIle all this bas beru'I going om,
~.rot,
a..
wruld OOSI lO" tllan $1
D
billimuumU8llywilb
• ~.tof'
III howlIl8lI.ycounLT"icIiDlhe
world are pcoplclnllY ~loIlj
10
.Ilea the g(NBnJrnent i!l:ljEl!! to their
!hal\10.....,
IGmoke it
and other ..,ploy •••
llmarijuanlll for their
_ otd~d"'tQllllwth.,
C_DB o..e.nt-f'or.-TI\t
$1 MDlion l'roblem
in hl.
driveway'S
lD &5IlneJT,l1!kI ~
froe tripoln ... Ium for
...".,.,......ry
MedlcalM-u .......
I!J. CAJON, Calif_ - Amon
,.;Ih a praoodption for rnodioal.
mmljuano e)olms
guiltrWodne,daylo
VClJDont
pn)bg_
CHICAGO (eN) - Th. 7th
rcvivod cl.w... !hot
Chloago poD.. officen; .. "",iI
th.. olootb or. prominent .I\'Il
tight.. .ollVl.rt by refuslnglo
l"""id. 1101' medi.. do"
with
wbo.n shOWdunealh In.rooU
09.:iN1IND
;"
,lUde .WInS.
dentlst ""oil hI.oElUiIIT....
lW USA eUCli!OO!Ele~
(eN) - Toiocl1er. tblo
Iho mlddl. oi til[t'~
s1tuat1""" lll1Rino
bore. Wordsbaro,
populati." as'!. 'NOS totolly OIIt <>If
by£loollaSundaT. it.! I""lpl.
"",e'""d no belp until t:m"'mmenI
By.roe
IlWlII ....tim ea, Q
- J..... ,-, p,..,iJtm.I
"
Pleads GuIIt;Y1n Ntt
"Ibis LllWsolt May PiDCh a Bit'
IUld fi.bing
G'!I
eop.1I!f..,. B~UaDle fGr
dmth 100... _ he hOlOhd
whon a &.put;ytumeil in !rOD!
of hIm;,1 on lnte...:lilm, ond
that olhe>-deputi es J.\Jihed ..
tb. _
'lUend tho dfo!g
to
"ft' -..~=:~!~
.---------------------,
Wiseonsin
hDm,""
IAwone
housefallonmto Iho
ri'\I'I;:T, Eln.d onother one dumped moo
dim"""'" aha"",.goa;:~.In
ou.te~8l!>r obongod the trick w,hilo i, ......
"""lIIl'IIlg.
-"
8""'''''
r;
frtJtn their
1'!nn In oncbange for kickboclw,
s.d..ro .u",GFORi)
AlJSl'(N (CN)-TRo
..\to",,,)!
when bo d.cided
. --, .;
otii!:t:Kecords 'If-
BarTDsslesWn:1iA..G,
B)' CAUERON
.,.
1'tl &po .......
mWorker8'~1l"hduced7
WASHINGTIlN(CN}-'Th.U.s.
NuolearRegulillotyCommisolon
requeoto oomrnont on whaU- tD
oreateoI bo£"", a oi~judj;c.
In •
AngeleS" Sa"" Shrinking C~
Does !\lot ~ect
Le~larioe Bnilout
l.o5
By MARIA PINZEO
.•
LD9ANou,ES (eN).
klthebigp:stlrlol';""'ln
: OiJifi'!igh!l!foraway
II> dMl tvilh eo""""""
lo.)"tdU of:"vOQ pwpl~ill
thelleKl!ttceyeam,
i·~~t·, ~!!.J;
.:JL...•: ,.;
.
:O--- ..··~-·-·l
;-~-""-"-',-"
r ... ,
-'
,.1
I .
"
;
Y."
:
j
..'
Presidln, Judie lee
I!.dmcm.aidthe -"",orc"lifami8wjudldaty.shouldst"P
hoping thel.egiolatut. will baillhem ollllDld make ....td
dooioi""" "" prioriti .. that will k=p oollrto opm.
reQ~ti(Jlll9f1!8'i1nljns
1Im.ItiIIg tb. 8Ill1UIIldose ohedl.llon
to worMrs' eyu. Q
CoulllytneplJ,y aotninedtbem,
'Queens biz...w... wog~th.ct
u.d il1cgolJy dcp:Jrtod OlIO af
.",tfur S47"K.' [j;J
Ih<:m to Mcrlco.evontlmt¢
Ihoy hIId void docUll!l:lllB. !] · Lbolialiou.u, ~
LOS ANGl!.l.ES - An "ola.,.
HlBpani. ",,,,,Ie" claim Lao
Arq;d.. CoIllllJ.h~
daplJlleshoua=doOO
vloli>09·
r..,
Iolj
Publbldna
Ml\NlLl.Tl"AN
- Mi~point
'Il"oik lIoob do:1.... Eri.
KampmIUlD ~.~
it by".. !fdealing, ImproprOe!y aM
m.If.....".,' l"or6J'fm"B,
· inoludlr.s: 1!mJofeJ-.~
~400,00D ofMldpoict's DlOlI"},
fD (na.nporl)')Bn1Jfort,
orwhich
l"Wnpmenn i. ptuidont" for
·ooot.o _,0<1",1" thooo.l,
Simpmn book, 1fl Did It"
e'l
E:ntln> CoIllmDDilt""
Sb-anded inVmmont
By fiOBEIlTKAHN
Wn.U"MSVIU.E,
"""""unili
_
:~:,~~f~~
Vt. (emlIl SDuihOlIl
Vermont romoln
toffhyfloocll:..g
tbat ..... hcd ""tm.do and bIl<1g"',
tuok 'NI how ... and dumped .... in
Ibe middle oflll.mad to old
oounltJr·
• -, -."
'J'
~. -, ,
\/r~:~~{~;;~!~;
:re:~~bl"
.-
c:o..purate Arropnee'llt BHilton
- -D!ILLAS (eN) - A doOlQ~
oiled. Hal""Hol.~
.r-'/./~ ...... _
/~
.'almll>g thatlD a &how of
"/(;v
;~ru1lIJhbI. oaop_to.
WOODUoI'iD, CaIif.-A
·faih.,..lam.. Woocl/alld, Joint
!1ninm DiottIcl: emplayeea i0oi<
hi> """outo!.ohool and Ilnwo
. him to. boIberobopwh ... hio
hoir-..""t apilmblowi!l,
ondloru..~
Gl
, 1UrOgIIna;,'" dcr III
""ploy .. ...,.our
Yidoatap:d
..... "n.....,..."G,
Dth"".taff membcrslm.,,"gatloll
more Iilan an hour, "'., .. bowed Ih",,;400 repeatedl,y
horfor
to • !'OClI!IfuI. of mOO "while the plointill" ......pt.·
G'!
Mothtt ofDri._r Whose'l'ro<;k KiDctl8
Sues ~
QfCDlitornia z;ooKB.ce
B~JAMIE IRISs
SANDrEGO[CN]·AlDl>lh
... ued~ofThe
CBlIfaml. ~oo o>ff'.totld moo fir the dis1rcs$sho OIlfI"ered when
she """, hoT "",,'. truok "veer offthon.""traol< ... /lip ov.,.,.nd
IdlI e1sht p",plo ..,<1. injun: d...." whD were pennlud 10
"""'·""'''''*- D
sland"" ....
GaulfhOU!llIlNIII'W!:~
~
-~
Jannsol'Um
-..
http://www.courthonsenews.com/
"
~
Exhibit 1
Page 16
9/112011
FER145
Case 2: 11~cv~08083~R ~MAN Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:1 0
Page 18 of 158 Page ID
EXHIBITZ·
FER146
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Mexican League on Univision: Check Your Loefl:
Filed 09/29/11
Page 19 of 158 Page ID
Lls'tmgs - NYTimes.com
Page 1 of I
"TJ::w New York 'l111le5 SOReI' 1lI0B
$EPTEMSER9,
2001:1,12:21 PM
Mexican League on Univision: Check Your Local Listings
By JACK BELL
A dispute between two Spanish-language television giants, Univision and Grupe Televisa,
could result in the games of three top Mexican league teams being pulled from Univision,
which shows the games in the United States.
Televise - which owns Club America, Necaxa and San Luis - has filed a suit in Superior
Court in Los Angeles in which it says Univision must stop its broadcasts of games
involving the three teams by Sept. 28, according to a report by the Courthouse News
Service. Televisa is asking the court to invalidate a contract, which Univision asserts runs
through 2017. Televise said it is prepared to begin broadcasting the games of the three
teams it owns.
Univision's broadcast of Mexican league games in the United States draw impressive
numbers of viewers who generally fall under the radar. Univision claims that more
Hispanic viewers between ili·e ages of 18 and 49 watched the aooz leegue tournament
finals than watched that year's Super Bowl.
Club America, based in Mexico City, is one of the country's most popular teams. San Luis
made it to the semfinals of the 2008 Clausura tournament Necaxa was the subj ect of an
offer from the state of Aguascalientes, which reportedly offered Televisa $30 million for
the club,
Copyright Z!l11 TIle New YDfk Tjnes
company
I Privacy
Policy
I NYTimllS.com
I
620 Eighth Avenue New Yor1l, NY 10018
.r.
Exhibit 2
Page 17
http://goaJ.blogs.nytimes.coml2008/09/09/mexican-league-on-univision-check-your-Iocal-l...
9/1612011
FER147
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 7
Gallery Challenges Jeff Koons's Balloon Dog
Filed 09/29/11
da1m ~ NYTimes.com
Page 20 of 158 Page 10
Page 1 of]
IbrlidifUrnit IebaH
IIdsBeaI
Tho ~.
at I.cvge
JANUARY 21, 2011,12:14 PM
Gallery Challenges JeffK.oODS~S ~I60D Dog CiaiDl
By PA TR/e/A
COHEN
You may not have realized that the balloon dog you bought for a buck from a street clown
might be a collector's item. But the artist Jeff Koons, who constructed a to-foot tall
"Balloon Dog" that has been exhibited in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and elsewhere,
sent a cease-and-desist letter to a Canadian manufacturer and San Francisco gallery for
producing and selling "Balloon Dog" bookends. Now the gallery, Park Life, has asked a
federal court for a declaratory judgment that states the canine shape cannot be
copyrighted, according to Courthouse News Service. "As virtually any clown can attest, no
one owns the idea of making a balloon dog, and the shape created by twisting a balloon
into a dog-like form is part of the public domain, n the gallery says in its federal complaint.
"Any similarities between the Balloon Dog Bookend compared with the Balloon Dog
Structure are driven by the wholly unprotectable idea of depicting the shape of a balloon
dog in a solid form."
copyrlgh12011
Tne New YorK TImes company
I priVacy. POliCY I N)'Tlmss.com
~ -....
...:;,
'
620 Elllhtll Avenue NEIINYort, NY 10018
.;. .)
Exhibit 2
Page 18
http://artsbeat,blogs.nytimes.coml20
11/0 1121IgaUery-chaIlenges-jeff-koons-balloon-dog-cl.
,. 9/16/2011
FER148
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 21 of 158 Page 10
#:1 3
Exhibit 2
Page 19
FER149
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 22 of 158 - Page ID
last Sept 11 suit - chicagotribune ... Page Ion
United Airlines, Huntleigh may have burden ot1~~ofin
GlUp1iilnnuB!yn '"
ur
Horne
Nvws
Business
Sports
A&E
Travel
HAIR LOSS
maKEs me:. ,
.
;,:-. , ;~ /I~ ~
-.
".,
;8
'J,.ft _
:.
(:}?12 I,
Heallh
0..
-:"
OpiniDn
Real Elltat&
'
~~i-~
C:s
rs
Jl'bs
fSOOrch
Shopping
-- ;f
~
;j\
I"J
-
"
\'
Chl.:;agDland pictures from
the 9/11 anniversary
: ~
-
BREAKING BUSINESS
SIII'l tip
lIERINGJ,1(MEDlCr\L
.J-
I
_
Gallery: Photos from
Bears' openar against the
NBC 5 to replace Ginger
Zell- with 2 _athercII$Wrs
Falcona
c'-
United Airlines, Huntleigb may have burden of
proof in last Sept. 11 suit
8 6'
Common..
1
"'ti
:.r':;
[i'rmq
tbe CUUl"thcmm News ServifA.
"
"
:~,.':";'
;
f
'·i~'
'
r United
Ah'lines
and its sllWrity consultant Huntlsigh
",. mllY nssurne the burden of proof in the only reD1aining
i:, wrongful
death lnI'suit stemming
fuderal judge ruled,
from the Sept.]1
USA
attacks,
a
VIDEO GAU..ERY
Related
Mary Bavis, w~ose 31-year-old SOil, Mark. died on
IJllited Airlines Flight 175, has not accepted a
settlement,
months "way from he1'Nt>Vembertrial
date.
Ninety-five
STORY, 'No crsdibIB Ihr&a\ 1. Ch"'go'
other wrongful death suits stemming
the attack5 bq~ been settled for
D reported
from
$500
million.
Get the f\I1I staty»
STORY; l,on. 1<1 "" •• tln~ud
Cantll"'l!!lnl8l$40M In ~ale
Topics
Uroiled AI< Un ..
Air Tranopollallcn Industty
Murder
,"
TM dldy da~n .... &$rf gin giving for
1
.'
mon
$25 rHSlOlUrOol
~iIdI
gln cerlifk:E1i2s rer $8
Subscribe
\0 daily d""l.
Exhibit 2
Page 20
http://www.chicagotribune.com/businessibreakinglcbi
-united -airlines-huntleigh-may-have-
_.. 9/12/2011
FER150
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
o!~oo1n last Sept, 11 suit - chicagotribune.;
i
United Airlines, Huntleigh may have burden
Co""'O~l::: 201;. ChIcpul"," Ltnlt 01 VHeet~ng oommsnrs 9/8 nor o/fowed. 1lII8 Is ,.,1 e fiPOl f(}f (reo sori ••
Mo."goo oubocrlpllon
SIlbscnp1lon paymaol
M.bll<1
E-acl<
Trilxlnee'lfertll5
TwIl,.,
f"""" euk
W'S
ofijrbof
HELP
AnnCi\.lhcvmonb
Aponmom.
fDr&lide
CD'lIlInerdaJ rel!3l,"law
Garage sa lo.
Helpwaor<>i
HDmeslor"EMI!e
Car&
~
Repl1fl1s
AI>OuLTribune
·~I •
·r
Page 2 of 158 Page 10
in last Sept. 11 suit - chicagotribune.;
CLASSlFIED
Buy on ad
.M¥artisiJ'l~ loiur;OI1I1
Sell ....... "" adv~Gfng
Special sd sodiOil.
S•• fAOs
SHOP
Cou,,"'"
FanSllop
1hIo. Club
T I'ibune StG'r.
PtKllO
SlOJ'e
Page 3 of 3
ARCHIVES
Pool...
V-idoo
EvonlolioUngo
Cpl~.
~ •• IIRrs. Share
81Pg.
.pp.
Mop. &
TQpic 91!.lDriD.5
.:,~. !Monso;:p·
:PbRu..-lo.
.:;','
NOW!!In EQ~I",r~
Filed 09/29/11
Pal. kI,."'"
Public
rlilooltli
" TrilHln. NcWlJP.~rwclJa/le
·f··
..~
Exhibit 2
Page 22
-v~
;
c
~
http://www.chicagotribune.comlbusinesslbreakinglchi
"
i-!
-united-airlines- huntleigh-may-have-,
,, 9/12/2011
FER152
PagelD
News Service
Courthouse
United
Airlin"" May Gel the Il ..........
Ei~ ADA'"
;.r..LASf'EI;..i]
Ute
of P~DofiD
SU)Jt ...
:Nesligcn.eTri~1
11,"",1111.
MANHATI' ..... (CN) - unUed .-IlrllnlllO lis •• .,.r~y
"1
and
c..,.ult"'IIl:".Uo%~
UaA. lIIay .... m. lb. b.rdon of
~fl.th.
unly rem4ln!n& _,11:01
doat~ 1.", ... 11
BletlllnTnr; fJ'lDII the Sept. J I ,tW:ajckli• .iII fedellil iudc:e
~
- JJ'_'-' .... ?>...
;
rvIe<1.
Mar)' aaVi', who ... 3'.,.."·01<1 SGn,
(-
M,," died on
Uaited AirHntl3 Fligi1! 175,11115 no. accepted 13 .Iettlemeat,
montbl away from her
Novemberlrlal
dote.
Nine1y·jivo othor "'n>Il~fu1 doath 0"'1' .. "", .. in~ !'rom Ih. o\Uloktl hove been oett1od
$son mmjon.
I~Tlclandilnl.s ill::bmV'W:d.jiL~[hil 'h" g,ttmli {'uScptllmbcr 'I. ';t(KU. wcru tl1l;.:LI,;. ~n)'
nUl
lholtlle)' "'Ore ooall&PIII,"u.s. DI"~CI Jud~. AMn H.III11~t.1II ""01" io Ill' .'1",,1. 7 o.'det
and.OpinLon Rtigulaling Flnrden!ii C.fProDr i'nd r.!M1leJ; fuof"Jm)·IRliilr\l:IIIlI~,
,
AII=tne parties wn'P lip lbDir pre-I1'm] mminn5. HrJICTILeio ruled DR whet'herlJa ...i9 may
pu" .....
te low .lalms,.nd wb ere Ih. burden .rp.oahhDuld
£nlJ oUrial.
1114 ot"doll"lo.tea lha, lbtlou-ptt:.mle)l
Cl.~ Dflh~ C(ni~[~lJIlio~1l!1,.ntledthe nl'ti[
qu •• tion, bDOtlu~<1.I •• 1~1~'" ""W of l'ed.",II.",.
in
Holr.. .. I.;" iliDn 10 .now what IhO)' did ,md why!h.y dlcl il: Ihe
oro"", .tFlN. lilL ill.ppropria-'D to rrqulfQ defendll'Dts to al~mD thvbvrdllR to vum..,
r.......ro: IYllh this evid"""~.H defop'"IUIIS"""""~' pl.intlffwUl hovo Ihc .1IImol< burd ••
(If proving ~ome IJ.litJrGll allure Qfdlll:l CII.-o. Ir dlll.t l"1lreilIlihown to be the lundltlrd. lr
£
""tend.u\>· ""tr.... liol oomplio" .. with l1:IlI'iallons and proce~"Tei L 100wnto bI! 0
••
h.""
""fens •• dpiomla.~,
.. in
Ibal uilimst. b"td.en of p u
""ail ••
r.""aro wltll ,.,flir:ienleyid"" .....
W"",rthel ••• , Judsuliolb: .. l,in
dor.r tht. ri,\< g.llhroUllb,'· be$Qid. Ih'Tiroll$ "'pII.led. "I !lOTl'1
know how rb~ WI"JIpnns gm rbrmJr;h. And rtlon'l kn.CPot,'
Irnegligenf':f IS'the only
tm::
cxplanaLiDn:
'I'h. """I ro.,l
dole is SOft. '9: •• Ialls .100ed Al'
~
Coo7l!!lh:W.if!l,Wr.sSO ....
'99
...
Nav. 7,
Cl
1,\0!i£.I9.l:!~
~'i'~
~
'~.
u;,' ,"
, . :~
Exhibit 2
Page 23
FER153
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09129/11
Page 2 . of 158 Page tD
#:1 8
Exhibit 2
Page 24
FER154
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 27 of 158 Page ID
#:1 ·9
'I1U.: CLORE AND MAIL
September 5, 2011
Grieving mother told to remove pictures from cubicle
By Madeleine While
Globe end Mall Blog
A court rules there was nothing wrong with employer telling woman to stop talking abolJl deceased
daughter
The aeath of a child Is devastel!iIl9
.
\
to any parent, but being tIUs.
Exhibit 2
Page 27
http://www.nypost.comlfi.printlnews/intemationalllawsuit_fine_whine
_c3.1kozC2JJif3PHH.,.
9/1612011
FER157
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:152
Page 30 of 158 Page 10
Exhibit 2
Page 28
FER158
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R "-MAN Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
Page 31 of 158 Page ID
Guantanamo Detainee Ghailani Convicted on JtiSt1reharge by N.Y. Jury I The Rundown •.. Page 10f2
i\ 8LOC OF I:EWS
LAW·· tIovombo< 17,10100\
ArlO
tlSICHT
7,0) PM El:IY
Guantanamo Detainee Ghailani
Convicted on Just 1Charge by N.Y, Jury
Dr; NF,y,~Wj!8l<
wile
The first suspect transferred tram Guantanamll militaIy prison to stand a
civilian tri.l WlISacquitted late Wodncsd.ym nearly "\'6IY cl",.rge that he
helped with terrorist Bttaclnjra and
Tanzania
that kined 224 peo~1e ir119~8.
Mer a week of dellberatJOD, a fed~1 jury convicted Ahmed Ghallan1, 36.s
l'IInzani"" from Zan';\lDr oEone t:J)ont of Cllnsp!tacy and acquitted him mall
more than 280 otiw:'rountG, including murder and murder ""nspi~.
Theverdict deals a setback to President Obuna's pia"" fortlJling lelTonsm
suspects on U.S. soll Bnd marks. rare defeat tor the U.S. Attorney's Office in
New York, which nos a noar pomoct ",.ord in pro""euting terrorism .... u.
Prosecuto,. branded GhBilani a cold·blooded terrori5l, but tile defense
portrayed him a~ a clue1,..s=and
boy, eKploi1ed by senior al-Qalda
operatives and framed by evidence from contaminared crime 5=es,
Ghoilsni ...... convicted of one .ount of oonsplrecyto destroy U,S. prnperty.
He!""". a minimum or 20yearf and a maxillium oflifein priSOIlsl
sentencing on Jon" 25.
Ada", KlMfeJd', • repotterforCourtboQae
N ew8 S""";ce, WlIB in the
...... rtl'DDm and spo1
hl"I:'lISN"1f.r~"t1lIt'L"'ofll~Jl-.r.;
Ir(ln,;,imlll:lII:un'JoJ.I1U'. W..:
t'n.,.thrrr"o;lJ'\ .':"rl'nl""'"
lIllI-I": lool ~l.;-p.]: fc.1h...... lww....
l
b.~::i;~lj.il~dt-[~llr:-.~<';~~\I'.,:·:1I,.rei~ !..·a~·If"" IN.lt..thr
..
{,..\.1;;;!l.l'"!ht 11iIr>1; Ol.l,\' !1":"-t ~u:-!I" .ll'mr:..'I~·.
j!":~.o;j~l :ll'.Ji';\'.,.. tI~ h .. h· ..;".".... .j i"iJ)" I...A.llr .... rW~oC' iI iJ·.i.n,:,h fJ( rlJi."C" rr~rJI.I!'~~ ~
h
F4..~ iH ~1In.
\;¢iI'Ii,* r-1)U I)u~ "'Ij,'t;rt..f tl( Jo."'ri'I"IW1~ l'jI'll"k. 'nl,1 {'!!$ ~!"-.\-.;I·J~k1lr r~f'/C,:.rbt-TIq,hl.~I~Ir1
Ull ~Iu- ;9Ij.r
SUPPORT YOUR
:",,,1j ... 1:}lbl~}! ·In
rj ..
W.'~
'1i1(1,,.1
LOCPoI. SlAllON
l.-")lLr.:.t" l<':lt!llrrJ I"""" ~r.II'o'rn
n
I)rlln~D9i'I'U
.1M,'.c('ImIJl1ol1lioo vE
il'" r.lJili.l:51
L
Exhibit 2
Page 29
hrtp:J/www.pbs,org/[lewshour/rundo~O
1.9!llJguantanamo-detainee-convicted-on-just-l."
9/16/2011
FER159
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 7
"""'-:'j ut;ti'!i: tr.~tt!f.
]~'e:Snrrnsot
UseW1~~
Page 32 of 158 Page 10
J~i1fCharge by N.Y. Jury I The Rundown ... Page 2of2
Guantanamo Detainee Ghailani Coti:vi~on
r~lU1 ""r! rt'C'''''\':''J':. ~ ""l.lhlhil'iil'.~ but\(!I,;,nr ...
·",.,.k....Indurle MOI1' .i~;dl",
Filed 09/29/11
PriraL')'
....,liny.
DISGUS
._ .t--
. ~
I
,
Exhibit 2
Page 30
hUp:llwww,pbs.orginewshour/nmdown/201
Ollllguantanamo-detainee-convictedwon-justw
1...
9116/2011
FER160
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:155
Page 33 of 158
Page 10
Exhibit 2
Page 31
FER161
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 3 of 158 Page ID
, Valedictorian sues school: Was she snubbed be&ds~ of race? - This Just In - CNN.com B,.. Page 1 of 5
d
On tile Radar We break down what's on th
lth
look 111the stories you need 10 know about ~
de..y
Bltttle for LibyS Interpol issues arrest warrants as hlJlll for leader Moammar Gadhafi continues
[-:=,/,-~~~:\;',;' ~;
"'I
f._I·
.~ ~
.'1'
~\ I I
v:
•
l-:~'~~,.,-;;pi
,
HurriCllne Season Obama signs em
Syrift UnrcstFerociou.
ene declaralioJlI for NorthellSl flooding lISstorms cause havoc
.
cmclrdown ggains ~
,
.
b
!lOtions tluelllen relations with neigllbors
~
1* ......
r ".
~~~
Qy..-besrd
Valedictorian
on 'CNN.9'J!! Collections of COl1U11wtsrom CNN.COIIIreaders on the biSSest ~lQries ofthe day
f
s~b;c~kDl
sues schopl: Was she snubbed
because of rate?
'{
,
July 26tl1. 2011
04:$6PMET
~
Twitter
Q!gg
del.icio.us
reddi!
(2
• Libya this wcek.: Cjrcle closes on Gadhafi'
rebel.; •• wilh West smmgl!Jen
• GolL3 Watch: They caught wbal'l
• Ru •• IM!craft bril!!!S3 back trom Woe staliOD
OS9 ~omments)
~
"'="'....-.l
• Rogue lrIlIling .u.lI-valediclorian. CNN was unable ~ ",ach Thompson for
comment
The complain! say. Thompson attributed !he decilliDn I() ~omething in the studwt hBlidbook, Ihouglt
the compllint says h.c did not list ~ speoific JXIIiOl}'.
~
AYu
®Wn-brk on Twirlm"
Authority prcsidcm press.s fur
full U.N. membershIp. huo·/lt.ooIYJ(m5iwlJ
26 minutes '!!IP
• Bailie for IlLi.!oo! llIgcs in~
stronghold •. ht!p:JIl.co/j SgA87iD
49 mjnuts ago
• Hurricane!lMilr.ill to bring heavy winds, rain
to Newfoundl8J1d. h!lP:tlt,co!U SJ8QzJ
• NNestiniiIII
l..!!m!UsQ
In regards Lorecognition ofa valGdiclorian, !he McOeht:e handbook says thai "SllIdCllt!lmust be
cOllrin~o~sly cnrolled at McGcllee High SchooIlhc last nYo scm~slars witho'" lransfc:rring during
lhis time to be consi
~ave a valediclDJian Who is an All'ican-l't.meri~a:n..
AUgust 16,2011 al9:53 pm II~
J. M~BM
Il)eed more informlltion on their GPA's wid how many c:r~dil hours !hey took, If the white
~tudent look more houn, they would have 8 lower GPA duo ID how /'J' alas." work; oven if
!hey got an 'A· in the class. Having mort =dit hows e0 h!U"d~rclasses, I don't !;now aboo! this s!:llDol district in
particular, but my school distrilinl:i(en a4·pQinl'CIII~) fDran"A" in an
IIdvlUlced placement class, 5 points for l1li "A" in en honors class, IIIId!h. usual 4 pcbns
for an ..A· in a regular class - because. of tht, someone with mostly A's IItIdII few of
I"""" Ild.. anced or honors classes can n..ve a GPA ~Id'" than 4.0 (My valedictorlan h.d
something crazy like II S.l).
August 23, 20 11 al 10:22 pm II
4. ClRire
You're probably camel, !hal it was ooout morals and norrece, bUI iflhl;y didn't have any
palmy in place 1111' stated anything other than GPA was collSidercd. she still has 11
case. I
doubt she'll get $750K--sbe's obviously. viewing: this lIS~ golden oJlportunllJl·
July 26, lOll at 5:ll9 pm I j ~
S. Getlrga
1 don" und~rsllllld how having an unwed mom would make her have !he h ;gheSl GPA in tile
enlire school, wbich made the white school principal so uncomfortllblc thaI he chose a white
student with a lower GPA to be a "c~·valedic'ori!ll1·. Can you please explain?
]uly26,201I
atS:24.pmll~
6. CO.SEJilS
i.
-,.
DISLIKE!1!
W·
July 26, 20 I lilt 5:29 pm
1. CQ.SEIVS
OBVIOUSLY
, .
111!&ruY
YOUR MOTHER DID NOT 00 A OOOD JOB. YOU ARE JUDOING HER
AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HER .....
July 26. lOll al 5:31 pmll~
8. LOt.
1know you ~ trolling, m~,
bllt yt>ur comment ~r~"cd me upl Thule! for the laugh I @
July 26.2011
at
6:08 pm II~
9. IllSiiCl!
Either
wll)'.~ Mono! ity
based or I>IciaJ)y bll5cc. It'5 flat out wrong.
July 26,2011 .16: 16 pm II Reply
10. itsa
So you're assuming she's trying to cBSh in and i1D~making a vcry valid point'! Really?
You're right, she mus' be 11lazy dcmlb~1I to be a\ 1he top cfhor dm as a molh~r. Think about
maljusl fora minute. Lawsuits SHOULD be about,ocialjustice, III1dthisune ls,IMHO.
July 26,2011 al 6:27 JIm II~
II. 1/$0
That's right. B golden oppmunity- for WHA T'1 An attempt to muke a 101of mopey wilhout
having 10 work fur it? I'm sure thaI'S how she gollo N valedie\OIian. by being a 1\lZY
oppgrlUJ1ist IDle Whining.
AP classes are weighted into Ihe GPA so I think \ltis whole argurn~nt is nonsense. Either her
OPA _lied
fDr first or itwltsl1't She d~serves every single thlng·she·ha!l worked hBr butt off
fur.
.,",,,..
.!
Exhibit 2
Page 35
",
http://news.blogs.cnn,com/20
11/07/26fvaledictorian-sues-school
~was~she-snubbed- becaus,.,
911612011
FER165
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
Valedictorian
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 38 of 158 Page ID
sues school: Was she snubbed beUJseC6frace? - Thill Just In - CNN .com B... Page 5 of 5
If s~ Silid sh~ should get special bl:slmcm bC\aIII5c she's 111"11 Of because slIe'll a single
mother !hen sbe'd be WIly offbase. She earned her stDi:1l'lO !h.. number On~ 31udont in ber
IJ:i
class. Wby is it OK 10 djlu!e that7
July 26, 2D11 at 6:36 pm
12. /1f1PIIint10lJ
II~
Obviously yon'rc not too smart, II's 75k. lIot 7S0k. Maybe you should take an AP class in
math.
July 26.2011 at 6:43 pm
13. LtutDillosaur
IIBmh!
Well, if say~ she sued In fed~11!I court. Her lawyer may hove been desp."'" for ajwi.dictional
basis Ihal w()bld sUck..so s/he threw in the kitchen
parties from different SUlIe. II> bring a diversity suit
not be diversity of cilizenship. the ease promotes
IIllcgalion. regarding the racial compo$ilion of
sink of "qualifiers." You need $7Sk +
in fcd~ral court; find Iillooygh there may
cduclltionlll diversity (see ~ second
"lasses), whldl. is close cnough. right?
t~
Bul seri(lIi~ly.
idea to.shoot for.a federalibn,arn rather dJ1III1~t the
decld~ wh81 to do wIth a·black .plainlif(nov",1 rece-based ~18Im.
II's probably
Arkansas stille eolll'l sys~
a good
July 26, 20I I .8:44 pm j
14. Rodney
I B&!!lx
Read the Slof}l. She's asldng for $15,000 ...not $150,000. Probe.bly ju,t enough ID pay for her
golll>gc ckgree now that a scholarship is out of I~ question bCliausc she went from
Va!ediclonan 10 Co·VnledjdorilDl.
July 26,
zm I at 9:42
pm j
IB!!I!!Y
IS. debill[J
acre that she is askinS only S15,OOO. not $151).000. Does IUIYOlle rcillize how important
nledietorillTl status is to a college bound person? l'ln "lIi11ed she's taking them On. A:r~
has always been a rncially stunted state, and thb proves to me IIlllt lhing;s n.vall'! chongod
much since Brown vs !he BOllfd of EdLlC8tioD.
This while grandma S8)'S 'You go, Oirl'[
July 26, 20 [I at 9:47 pm ll.B!;l!!t
«Previous Hl! HH2lQllllllli!U.§ U II !2Nll22.21~ll2&llll29
UHllHllll~~g~~~~~U~.~ngD~~
:HlILll
Post a eomruot
II
'I,'
CNN weh""n ... lively and IIl> in
our T."". ofSCf!!i6!!. Com ..."'l ..... nUl pB- .... l'lcd hem d,1cy {'!I'I. y.~u oar.. tb~,im)iihing yu~ ",,51
mpY be used.lllo{J8 ..... YOWDllm9and profile pi,ulIR. i.n ~doIEc
ith
wid. D'IIi!Priyacy PD1iil;v and the
'i~~
hsvc: p'Bn1c:1ip!mulIRr I:Dm1r Tenns crScrvicc.
« Back 10 main
~ "revi~
post
nenpos! »
Weat!tet m!l!C",,1
S!'A~~~
H:1-.'fI'fr,'"
~
C~"''W'·
I Video 1NewsPulsc I u.s. I World I Politics I Justicel En!crtainmentl Im! I!:mllb. r l.iYi!!g 1D:mtll QJ!i!illm1 ~
Tools It wi"e,ets I~
I POdc8sts I BlDg!! I CNN mobile I ~
I E-m~l alerts 1CNN shop I ~
CNN "" I!SPANOL I CNN Cllile I CNN E"pansPn I
I
J
I
CNN TV I !iW I Trllllscrjpl$
Tenns
of
service
1~
QNC 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System Inc All Rights Reserved.
gUidelines t Ad choices [i'> I Ady~rtising praot;",,& I Advelti.o wjtil ..~ I About us 1ContQelLlS 1Work fot ~
r PriYaev
I~
I !:! larwd 10sh"'" v~h,dlc1011alll\QnoD with a WI1ft~
dassmalt by a rada! A!lamtaS scIlool dlslri<:t, a law.llit
I! sUI was lIteG last week on bellallor Il:ymberiV
Wimberly. 18. a~alnl\ the l\oI!:Gehee schOOl dlstricl. Us
""""rlnlendenl lind her high .cl>Gol ~lnolpol.
"Derlndanl&
dlcI ntll s~ppOrl AIr1<;;an-A",eri"'"
stu<:1enl9 .nd
did not want to see W1mbOfiV.lin Aflican-American )'DIIng
~r
••• v.... dicl ...... n...lh. nine-I"'!!" ouitd1argel,
J.i'liluil".
a1"~lII..-:ali diri~
....... 'awi.rw,[
-
......
I!'I4I
r..lIN'lOJ'IilWllt)
J
'141
aI ...
(G~
"I3ut f~r Wirnbor1y'll noce, ~ele.d ani. wo~ld noll1 .......
seleded a st\JIIan1 with B IDYl<'!"GPA lnan IMmborly 10 alse
be. ¥aledicloriah."
Am
JU!.l.ATl!D ARnClJiS
Ri!iv~ll!>d~cl.DrillllHlIIlc.rn..o\l
S,.~
Ill. Suit
J~l'Ie6.J~96
concealed Weapons ClaMetI!
Get
Q
:30slate CCw. Plus Top Notch Real Training- Not The
eare Minimum
WI'oW.FronISighl.COOl
c"''' i!r""llnlply 8<>&1.
aotobPr
,w,;
'6.
<.."uUl$3gLl~K
Gj..,-e !·lllllAIl.r.:.
0,,""_r8. '995
fil;lr
9ltLn'\JJ~
br
TIt.IaMIU~WlIS1'01"'1"'11" un Monday 1he Cour'lh""•• Newa s .. .Bolh Wimberly and Ihe ""ne
sbldenl spoke al1IieM~Genee SeCOndel)' School gn:KluilUO/lIn May. tb.laIwoJit sBid.
A m .. oago lei! w~b 111.""hoo! 5UPemlen10
.'
l~aneddlng
.c
Exhibit 2
Page 39
bttp:!larticles.nydailynews.cotn!20
11-07 -26/news129836852 _1 yole-valedictorian~shBl'e-
va...
9/1612011
FER169
,
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
.
-MAN Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:1'i
Page 2 of 158 Page 10
Exhibit 2
Page 40
FER170
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 7
Black Student Barred from Being ValedictorialSay~
Filed 09/29/11
Page 3 of 158 Page JD
Lawsuit
Page 1 of 4
IOPSlDRJES
L\.1EST
I'DPUI.~R
SCARCH
GOSSlPROUNDUr
r:;;:-]
D
,..,.
~.~~
....
r.sea
IIAd Pitt: Manyins ""islan
Mt 0 Boring Co,,~ 1'o,.to
YoIade
937
Gi\o theBeot
..
Doscriptio.n of. CarCr:Eh J>ver
~n&M""
-
Whioh V~Dnl St... I.Som!insJl ••
Boso Nud. phl>l.05?
~WARD~
P~cting
'Win'JleD
387
Sand,), Nigbl·.l!mmy
3Z1
plODDInr; ron 1'001~tiJiI
1JIIPOORS
~lin:tDent
D~UGS
RA.CISM
Black Student Barred
from Being Valedictorian,
Says Lawsuit
This Guy Stuffed Alrnas1 • KIlo of
HY~lAUnEtI'lO'CONNOR
IUl25,
2Q II
~,53 PM
lHEDAD.YSHOW
Th, Doizy Show }/Jock.
Bodnnan .. •• BPVVald'oSod,
Fountain
told her "that be deeid~l to
although
.-~
..
-r~
Doc:.s:a't a-.t:ecu'R.
On ..
to the
name a "hite stud~nt os covaledlctoriau,"
'fl. '!'rival. llano of DOMY Roy
IlardiD' ~D't
& Roill Baal<
~IIS
complllint. (Wjmberly'e mother]
Brattoll says tllllt the day after slJe
heard the "big mess" comment,
McGehee principal
IS6
lti.CISM
College Kids Who Wore Blackface
10 Sports Evern: 'Didn'1 WaJI\ to
OffeAd Anyon.'
Gather (sic] said Bmtton ahould have
told her she could not appeal his
grndlliltion
was May 13.
lHECOl&UT REPORT
tl>~
Stephen CQlbertlllld Jimmy FoDon
_ Sb<-Mouth BrQlIllln"l\. 4500 has been tmpped in q tim"
of
fr0l1l1\)60 for multiple dece.des. DpW. [Courtbouoo NC'V>'S,
Justin, image via
lI~ic
warp ofconfiicts
BuaYSaf8I;Y!,am
-~.
-
1'iU
HElRJX
Netflix IE Q&tIins S1.u~ht.r"d
McGeJ,l'e High s,,'hool)
By
lIS Own Pri ee Hii:..
RElATED ~'TOIP.IES
College Kid~
Germans
Wore Blacltfuceto Spor1l;ll.v"l>t 'Dldn'l Wnnt to Ofl'lmd Anyone'
W}lQ
Don't Really 'Get' AmelWln
Raciil'-"-----O->-"----
"_-~-~
DC
otherethnlcities
•• _.
__
1,,_._.-- ,
in the school other
5% Nalive Am.erican, fur instIuu:ethen no. the
white.
would be PdominatiDgly white". Look at at apartheid
a better tam
.•-~-
-you don't need to
have a majl)rRy to be dominant
~-.
. --.------I,~-----
---~-
------.-----.'........-.~
-----~
OX, yOlllost me .._
iii
l[<·ml1 e. Jl"'D"1l'Ip~
Happ:1-ThDIl;;hts
agreed
It
I'rt,}(,rel'3 r;i. '>Itheln;\
1
•
Hey isn't there a 111;11 word for "dolllinatIDgly"?
Wait, there is - irs predominantly.
----~ ,.,~---""-- _ _ __ - .------ .. --.- -~-.----~.--..
•
l\llJe.penelop~
-~
~r."~li"7.a:l
I think "mostly" would suffice. If it was Indeed "mostly". r haves
10% Hispanic,
, ' "->-"-"-~--------------'
which would make this statement
feellngtbesehool
cmnple1ely Incorrect.
is at least
Not to mention
this story
has no legs, and has been brought to us by someone who. named thelr kid K)IIlIber ly Wimberly.
"
IN
" •• _.
_
•
>-
ProOf_" _._._
••,
,y~
__.
,_.~~
••• __
".'_...,"_
.. ,.,
@..>mll~.
p~l\BL1[lC
The Kym berly Wimberly
part 18 the legs.
Hide '4 replie~
Exhibit 2
Page 43
http://gawker .comlS8245 57lblack-student -barred-from-being-
veledictorian-says-lawsuit
911612011
FER173
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 7
Black Student Barred from Being Val~dictoriaH.:Sa~
~ ~ ~.
.:-,
Filed 09/29/11
Page
Lawsuit
of 158 Page ID
Page 4 of4
-
Exhibit 2
Page 44
http://gawker.coml5824557lblack-student-barred-from-being-vwedictorian-says-Iawsuit
9/16/2011
FER174
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN· Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 7 of 158 Page 10
#:1 9
Exhibit 2
Page 45
FER175
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29111
Page 8 of 158 Page 10
#:170
Tuesday round-up: SCOruSblog
Page 1 of3
S"",IIVi_
·IJ1DV~1 ,
8U"lU"""
cGUR.T DFTZUi O1U"l'$D 3TA"J':r.lIlILOjJ
.
-n
.
ay,
SPONSORED
II
RSS
Cono r McEvI1y
P'u!,;IIi!'dTIU!:;r1:n~, !tolar
""iifi,m plr •• !>f,y
::-.cI:~h, ';ZPL 1 -';':;101 :a~u
Email Conar
BiD& Post Ar~h[ye ~
GOLDSTEIN
& RUSSELL, P.C.
Tuesday round-up
SUBSCRIBE
deoision. ill Plal~ and GenenJl Dynamics
eu"'''l'age 9fyesterday',
Yestenioy the Court IssueO two op!nlous: In Brown u. Plata. it ~a
de:cisl"u by a Ibree-jlldge
dlstriet wurt panel On.icriDg aillFoMila cffi(!inls to rei •••• slRte prisoners ; .nd In '!!:n...al Dunamics
Com u UuiledStateli it ~a
Federal Cireuit deol!iion and held tlJat when, to protect slate secrets,
u court dismisses
n coutraeror's
prima fDeievalid allinnalive defense to the govemment's
ullegations
of
breach of cOll\r.lcl, a proper remfljly is 10 lenv~tlJe parties wbere tIIey were on the d6Y Illey !1led suit.
The d«illion
in prata dominalc:d the news coverage Bud coltlmeutnry.
.IllL 1[>portunllyto nddmss the :;y~lelnie problem", but have let Ihemfesteryearaft~r~r"i
lCerschberx of ~
similarly conte!ltl~ that the stBIe "bas failed III a sysIemlc l_l.·
Tbe ma,iorizy's use ofduee
pholQl:Jll.pbs
10iUnstmlo
pn$OD conditions
Suprt;'lIIc C'Dllti
!lell
I-
was thefoeus ohdditlonlll
COll1nt~utaTY. At llillkilliZi'l lion, Jawu Mazzone su~1!< tbat "llhougll tbe CoIlM Included tbe
pbOlograpbs so thaI "readel"1l will see fur lhemseh-el! wliat !he condition! l'I'ilbiu the priSOIlS III'" IUre~ u~ tJ""..J:>y undc ....l!md better the "", .. o~ f'o:r!he Courf~ eo.dot'SIm1I>nlonhll elItrnordinrt MDuid pse visual aio.;; in
SumMIt,'
Conn GIoo:.;;ury
Stmrcrnt
ftbe
justices are oot nbout to "hoge the rules oftlle game in rases in which the govnrnmellt claims that
military, intelligence or diplomatic se<:ret5 may b. ='IlIlled,'"
Attha C-OllstitutlonuJ Ln" !'l·ot UJQg,
Stt-.",n O. Schwinn .thoc~ thiJi sentiment: be nOles that Jltbollgh the Court's boldillg Is narrow, the
declron 1ll0l)' nOll~lhel.ss "gb.-;l some IIgbl on the Court's 11ew oftbe [state·secrets]
priYllege outside
the Darrow fads orthi~ case." Ad~jtiQ11~r covcrng<: of the Gcn/ll'Clr D!I'lam",~deci.ion
Ql the Wnl! Stu..,t JDIl",aI, I'(),'! New., ABA ,la\\n,.I,aud
RESOURCES
is also
ADMINISTRATION
Nu ..':i&nil'lltl s('(.rn::ibln:
..I!.bntrt SGt¥I' l:.Jbl1?!i!'" .IJ:
~
THE MASlHEAD
8,...labl.
i
.!Y.I!J.lIT.
[diluri.l
~l"a1ly, ye.fthishll:!g. f'Qstn,edi. News (via t)Ja VlIlIoouver Sun), p .. tlnpmmta"Y BI'I"U\T (-via the
]( .. 1$ Bal"kv!Ok;
~l.n.~
....
Torouto SlLU), ODd Courthl)\la~ Now!!! S'Mr.c~
S
~
lldpLl~ Mnn"ger
The edilotiol board of the r.o.. AlI;el"," Tlt)lcs crilidaes
OJ
the Oollrt'. re\lSIt deolsio .. in K""ru~1
II.
Kfu!l.
At The [dmldmn~J;'dI.", GordDn Sl11itk JeSwods
OJ
to !he Chief Justice's
recent critictsro
af legll.l
!lCholorship.
"cub_re,:
SHARE THIS
,..
'_.
lli&II ~ E!lW!
._
~
--_ ...
~
Linked'[lI
BW!!!l.
~
i
..,__ ,•.J
_._.-_ ..._----_. __ .... -------_ .... --- ._- •._---------------_., ._---- --_.,I
CATEGORIES
...
'"
.._._..__..... . --.
._
Untugged
TAGS
aillt
MORE
..
This PUiit
-~ .. '-'
lh~l}["" lUI
_ _
-J
[.tl>;'
'M~F.h'iW
Fl'l)tnBJ'8I;"h
Armmla EnuL
Ata!knlil'llou:nd-[:rp
Mln''''!!1.. Fia"her
F'uplureSt..,ri",:·
i
t:rJ:tlr
---.-....,...
.....
_--_ ......, ~,. ,......... ... ·
.
··,·"
...I'·_ ..... ·~
·..
C",nlrih'I\nJ·.!!
bsyln l)'L$~!']l
"
fumoldMj1nn
Inog Sooli"(J(l.1!O
JW(b r nt..A~
~1
:.I1l1LL:iilia:oll
Christo C111mf
]'r:.lUhJU~ toW"ll.lt.l1
.1o"o;hua M;dr.
.f'nlillua
u(1 .. -FliD,d,r
h
M;}D."i:iDMillrT
'J\!I1itir.n
UII:-,
.,r
D:ar
Exhibit 2
Page 47
http://www.scotusblog.coml20
11/05/tuesday~round-up~ 731
9116/2011
FER177
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:172
Tuesday round-up: SCOruSblog
@=lIOB
(Click
$v.lI$'h
~IX ••
censeJ
. Page 50 of 158 Page ID
Page 3 of3
f91l' :i;il:l~~kLt!lj'§"
\':aWI~d~r
1r.[Ill' rnnN1t$tre
Exhibit 2
Page 48
http://www.scotusblog.coml20 IllOS/tuesday-round-up-73!
9/16/2011
FER178
.c
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29111
#:173
Page 51 of 158 Page ID
Exhibit 2
Page 49
FER179
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
FT Alpbaville
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 52 of 158
» JP Morgan, I put a spell on you #: 17
Page 10
Page 1 of3
FINANCIAL TIMES
ft.com/alphaville
JP Morgan, I put a spell on you
Posted by T... o;y Alloway on Apr 0708:20,
There's nothing like hard times to bring out the bank-bashing
CJPZIDetls.
And JP Morgan is no stranger to recession-induced weirdness, For instance, in 1933. in the midst of the Great
. Depression, John Pierpont Morgan Jr. had II midget sit on his lap during the Pecora Commission - a series of
bearings delving into the causes of the Wall Street Crash, Pecora eventually ended in some new regulation including
Glass-Steagall, the act whlch separated commercial and investment banking.
Anyway, the absurdity is back. And as the very funny LOLFed notes, we are no longer talking about using regulation
to curb the banks. No - we are talking using good 01' fashioned pseudo-religion.
From the Courthouse News Service:
MANHA1TAN (CN)- The self-ordained Rev, Billy Talen was arr'estoo on Easter Sunday
o/tf!l' putting a "holy hex" on JPMorgan Chase bank, which he calls the nation's largest
financier of coal-mining mountaintop removal. The fanner New York City mayoral candidate and his
green-robed chorus put the hex on two bank branches, saying Morgan Chase has helped destroy more
than 450 Appalachian mountains, deforested 800 squm'e miles and polluted more them 1,200 miles of
streams,
At this point you may be asking; since when is cursing a company an arrestable offense?
To which we (via the Court News Service) answer:
Rev, Billy led his Life After Shopping Gospel Choir to two East Village Chase branches, where the
singers "deposited" mounds oJ "sacred dirt:from Coal River M ountailI, West Virginia" on thejloors of
ATM lobbies, •. As Talen conclude'd h~ sermon, NYPD Officer WiUiam SIJeTI.Iltrup ordered
him to withdraw his deposit of dirtfrom the banlcJfool'o The Rev, Billy refused. "Thenyou
a.re coming with me," SvenstT'op said, while another officer took out the cuffs, and used them, and the
choir chanted, "Free speech! Free pressl Free people! Repressed!" Then the choz'r sang the text olthe
First Amendment,
. Dspoait of dirt. You can't make this stuffup (though arguably Rev. Billy did).
Anyway, FI' Alphaville sees a business opportunity
here.
Jamie Dimon voodoo dolls will now be aold in the first-floor gift shop:
Exhibit 2
Page 50
http://ftalphaville,
ft. cornlhlogl20 1Of04107 / 196626/jp-morgan- i-put -a -spell-on-youl
9/16/2011
FER180
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
FT Alphaville » JP Morgan, I put a spell on you #: 175
!. •
Page 53 of 158
Page ID
Page 2 013
. ,.
Related links:
Dimon takes t'\ stand on finance overhaul. - WSJ
..
Reverend !li11, and the Church of Stop Shepp 'ng - wikip~ia
~
This entry
WIlS posted
by Tracy Alloway on Wednesday, Aliril7th,
2010
at 8;2() find
i5 tiled
under Capital markets,
People. Tagged with God, ,JP morgan.
Comments
I am inclIned to agree with tha " coffin dodger" posting, particularly the following
"The mainstream media. newspapers, TV and Journalists ( I don' believe there are too many 'investigative' journalist left)
have failed cataclysmically to address the blame for this crisis and calling those responsible to account."
E!lpecially when there was "dirt" to deposit regarding JP Morgan Chase's affairs In the metals markets in the otherwise
unreported (in the mainstream media only) story and Intrigue ofihe eFTC meeting dated March 25th, 2010.
A pity, we get a midget instead.
Greek sprayers at work in A1hens.
"Thieves" is sprayed on the le1l side of the entrance, "Liars" on the right".
hltp :lIwww.faz.nat ...-Ecommon-SMed.htlnl
wally ~ Indt::ed. Thenk you, fixed.
John Pierpont Morgan was in his grave well before the Pecora hearings. I think you mean John Pierpont Morgan, Jr.
I fully endorse the Rev.BilIy, he's been pulling mildly amusing
art
pranks in NY for years.
These sort of 'crazies' get exposure at times whBn all other legitimate means of quest lOlling the behaviour of criminal and
Iraudulant acts (vis-a-vis banking cartels) have been ignored by those who ought 10 be discussing them.
Exhibit 2
Page 51
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/201
O/04l07/196626/jp--morgan-i
-put~a-spell-on-youl
9/16/2011
FER181
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
FT Alphaville » IP Morgan, I put a spell on
17
yott
Page 5 of 158 Page 10
Page 3 of 3
The mainstream media - newspapers, TV and journalists ( I don't believe there are too many 'investigative' journalist left)
have failed cataclysmically to address the blame for thIs crisis and calling those responsible to account,
It's I!rl\ to those brave enough to face the wrath afthe State
to voice
\heIr protests whilst the oligarch-controlled
media
ridicules these protestors as 'crazy'. And guess what? - it works· this poor deluded man was arrested for dropping some dirt
on the floor (and Ihis in the Lend of the Free) - ~mlng
to a pojce state near you soon!
I
Ah ..•, the natives are restle!:$ here Tracy ... it's just early spring ...
From the New Yorl< Times a story about Carr P. Paladino. He is a man in NY worth $150 million running for governor (and he
plans to spend $10 million on his campaign) ...
"...He has always had a knack for baing prnvocative, and show s no signs of toning down his lenguage during the gO'llern(lrs
race.
He calls his campa1gn - his first run for pubUc office - a "crusade." He has excoriated slate poritics:1leeders as "a parasitical
ruling class" and pledged to send corrupt legislators to the state prison at Attica."
Expect much more ..,
Another excellent Alphaville graphic. Becoming ql,lite sophisticated.
tID THE FINANCIAL
TIMES LTO 2011 FT and 'Financial Times' are hdemarks ofThe Fi nanciel Times Ltd.
.
. .~
'I
t
Exhibit 2
Page 52
http://ftaJphaviUe,ft.comlbJogl2
0 1Of 04/0711 96626/jp-morgan-i -put-a-spell-on-you/
911612011
FER182
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:177
Page 55 of 158· Page ID
Exhibit 2
Page 53
FER183
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Stimulus Wreckage - Page 1 - News - San FranciliJ?
l[MEBQY
IAI become an agent
I,~ <~J '"
......
News
N w • t-l Y I, b ;;
rt c v
'1"~
TOP
BlalC
1oIa~..
Stimulus Wreckage
frDJQ
H.iti in 19a3 end "".otuolly
... "",r P!TitlnJ; ,.btillea in ltali .... and J'reoch fbrl!ni:li;,h-l.nguage
""""s_,.be
docided
least two years tQ ~oml''''.
oil the
"""oily
al
mewed
ItyO\l caD~t
W
wa,till g lo5tartlwlflB,'"
old .. id.. So sh. signod
~... tional_
ev.rything
II]l
"'here
Corinthian
• nUlSingt
mavibS.
found
A. A,
HIID)'V'okl..
Ch.'lI.~
Alte.
Wb .... lhatbui" ...
!hot It VIWl~ \likeher
h"""".'ry cours
T 0 D A '!
1'1
Pra)eets
Like
Smith
Q
_rll>oo." Pr.nto
H.~e;u
STORIES
HIoII
c
IIiIUi
WIly
Ropullli ••••
lI.l~.tclQgy ~
AmmYfIlDu.;A
&plnWor
news
C A ~ E F. R .
A
~I@g
~IS_~_~_hS_F_~
__ ~
By
Page 5 of 158 Page ID
Page 1 of4
§F Weekly
o;:ould
finish
The scbool was r un
for"Plofit od." ... tional.Ilain
C011"ll.... Inc, which operales
106
vo•• \ional.cha>l. with 86.000 otodents ln1he
U.S. and C"';'da.
Ratlt ... [ban u..PJOVin~ hoT fore, Wrtquua)"ll
ent<"Q
ben ofm.ompetool
~ prnIOl\al
• nd in,u""outlloble
$~bP.rwee1<
ohe
tOllcher •
de.~t. SIl.', now earning
.. a borne care proVider, ond"'"
"" Id •• how .ho'll PO>' oH1ho $4"0000
loarL5 she too'k Oil' kt gr.Iertll;t10n
m studenl
a:ad alher
"t'lqIense.sat
Ii
p",!",m
"Everyday,
DRe-y~r Uccm'ed v~tio:p.aJ
I.... phDne'obeon
ringing
DunS
til
c,,';nthi.,,·~ .chool in A1h.mb",.
.l
FREE NIGHf OF THEATER
.."~F:Wee~ly on Facebook
a11iV!! In
the morning, and nnpnG at '" at hlght." sh.""1'
.fllle OOI)rumt caDs ,he gel,; from bm ."U.o'Io,,_
"It
WIIl;.
bomlJle,
horrible
""Peri"""",
Slideshows
&v1!1}'
Ke$ha at The Fox Theater
Ii.....think abD1lt n, ] get b.d dUMI!. 1 ......
I
sa,yin,to1n'"
penple. 'Wbot i. p.g on? Wh6t
U 8",ng""?' i10w can you lO!le630,000 from •
studOllt for a1ur
of that c~t filing a c1..., ootiOJl 1al'IIIui\ c:I.ilDill&
~rt
C~iIIII' Fuml>1§;"'/PUAIi M..tk:al
Ost
More N'ews Stories '"
an
Preoollre"
.. cruit."
to ",oct q~o.1IS ror InooD>ing Slndont., .nd th.t if inllMeillJu numb •• or~ l7Oduat...
Services
obl. 10 find "",rk In their fields. fI1ie oom p""ylltw paid a $6-:; mlmen .. tt1ll1l1ent
wron~in,")
1944 Ocean
View Ad I \/law Site
~ .~~.: ·~i
~
~neg.. Corinthian'.
Meanwhile, two ...,ploYl'Il& of E, .. O"
In debt.
wllo"'",
with.vt~dmittint
Bee
~- ......
F'llS:I1aJ1
J..-.y B."OWn tiled on un(BiI'busine:JSJ!flLoti"..
a.nerul
an.gills th., tb~O
She ttastll
, -rile Slrange HiSIDI}/ of Don't A:>k, Don'l Tell: A
Talk WIth !he Directors
UIi
than Its sch ools ..... deliver, al)d
le.vin@ studenTS Impossibly ~p
Corinthi.n,
L~'I;I\m
Ehll1l.::k 0ba1J8
emplo)'lng
then
Farm
More About
vocationallllU'5'e.
Ctlrihthlan lias been accused cf
..
to
A Visil
.
dogroe
or a1'lllid , .. obin g c.Ment:ial, .nd. two years of
Rcent
DelbUl"lIc:i Mtdl..al
• Pol-Heth~g RtlI~
ro.- i"t1M'5 TYdtmr ActrJunt t1Bl::ked, ClaJrns
Pm~d'ont ODBmlll\~natud
July~,2U'1
Board ofVocotiooGi NlIl"oing,"
•
•
.
'I\Ililo 0-;0.... ,
ClIo.I> ", ',I!o;i
OblimliL'S IlfU.g C_"IIIP-Oit
Mlnjuena.. Fede AnI en
JUry 1.::1 • .2011
lioen$ed v..... tionoi] ".r •• p«>s.am
the c.lif,mi.
S_
""rb. R""" .. SudgOI ToI""
JUly 1a. 2P11
A Ct>rinlhlon spokes"",n Gaid th.1 farillth.ian Colleges, In .. is. prime
GIven all these c~rop ralnts, (\'ISS .~.prlsed
$17lri";O~
w.'" just
Tb ...
';"0\1 ~oes.
benelleiazy ofth e Obaffil\ admlnlstnUoll',
Th~ ,,87 bUli~" pa
in teaching,"
"w.reeilher
wh;mprovid .. m.Doylo
mo:y=dve
included
l Meet 11 Fr1Gmlly Ghollt
Holel Majeslic
monO)'80 (ar <111.y.... ln Sion I'nmcloc:o, AoO,d
.....y of ALtCUlI~" - ramO\l~ r....
Bit sohoo!to
fund ~ reol-.m.te Invcos""on(
CUlil\.'Y Ml>demy. tho rubJect or. '007
5['udeJJts into IISlrUmlug
m~1!!
dmt, has gotten
operiti"'!,,,..
hl\O",ooivod
8I'w ••kr!l.,J~e olloilng
$68.~,l!f>4 ....... d the
tb.isd.ooI
More People & Places Awards >
misl.d
$6SJ'351.
SA ....INGS WHEN
YOU WAl.oITniEM
~ut
tho Pell Gr"nt baost lw made San Franc;""", ItVllreot CQlles. - a fifth·fI
o:lnv.Ited
gffi= wile rc 0104.,,10 talr.. cla5 ...
tQ
oecomo p 110."'"<;)' ledun"lo...,
th"",pist., and medioal."d " ... lol ....... an '" - a 10 tilDUlao cbaDlpion. Ida
.....
Nile of
~11..,~lrlf: -reJ
~
SF
Weekly"
Text Alerl6~
.
EveI9Ih ... o
San Francisco Classifieds
Exl1ibit 2
Page 5S
http://www,sf'weekly.comJ2009-09-30/news/stimulus-wreckage/
911612011
FER185
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R-MAN
Stimulus Wreckage
Document 7
- Page 1 - News - San
far reeeMd more otimulus·liokl!d
""8 GDmt mon"l'1han
Fran!\s1:§Q SF Weekly
allJ' othor eduo:atlonal JllStItution in~'"
"!'ind.",,: mO~ than $1 mill;on, 'IbJt'$ more than the Ultivorsily
of CalIfornia San l'r.Inclsco
1I10.e thon me.ely pouriJl!: com ;1110the ccanomy, the AIllcrIcan RecovclY """
"W.·r.alr
eadytaJdD~81eps
"<""0' !lnon.lolly.
All
I'JuidcM
fu.t\lIc:i
~II)', Hil,
i
·t
1ro~.(5.e~,
.dUI_IID
!
»b'I4~)
p.~.!S&a)
.... 1I1I 1S,126)
(
AI:!
ReinVlO$tmen1
Ob.", •• sid d ...... g. March "Pee"",
to mill se eoU.ge ortechni<:Bl hlIinill!; oll'ordoble. All in aU, we '"'0
msl
1944 Ocean
'iJf1'W Pd
\flew-Websile
MOTI3 Ad&
~>
Add New Comment
Siijn In wltll an optIon below
(rlf)'oo.! ilNn"j have &1"'1 account. pJe&:!!IEI
erner-e
cormu.•nt and' dldt. Post As to comment as a gUI!I!!l1
.
Showing 0 comments
soot. by I
Newe51 nn;a 3
....-,-------_. ,
,
i Polit~._. -
L......
1
t, .
Special Reports
,•..:
Tho_-RlIn!llvCIIy;,110.
u.s,
Tho WIllS! ~un IIg CiIy In ... u.Sc m.
rno \"/DIRI R..,
IIig cay., II1II U.S: Let"
lAunj0 .... Spiral
BI....
TnaWorviRI/I1 BlgCIIy:nlha U.S~How1haii.pp)'
ElIpflbO
5.n
PfI'mll.lm ray
Tnl!!llrJDb6
M.al_
FIOna ....
row'll City
IMlriIa1. ~iliQlla in agr'l,lo"I:(Dr
JII:11 DDinlii
SFW.oJS
pun:h= l'CCoro.(LAT, Wuhingtnn
Hcu •• 2So.rs:J,anow
and the celle.tleR
Demo.",t.,
oft[u-e.,
Rand P~ul to.now
for ''rovini!'' wiretaps ofmultlpld
of all "t.ngible" lte"", linted
to
a
controvem..J Patriot Act provisions Into 11M jll$l before the midnight d eadJin~ Ia..-t night, afterSenat.
prope • .a am""dmellts
_t
Pcst,AFP,
B1"omb~"Ko WSJ, CBS/AI").
~",'iot invetliSation, including busin_
,"';/
A1m ytlllerGay,
and other
rocoros
not linkcdto anyexuemJst
CAP). The extenBiOil
O1ganlzatton,
drew criticl!llD from SOJne
'."t (
.
Mar~ ti~ir~d
w~,n, ""Id
R~
ye>terday tlllll. the Obsm& e~tlD"
~u well beyond m.nda.-d =;di~ <>fit. lioiils, ,,"pedaltytlte
ofthe Pa!rio1.Aotthat
whim pass.d rhe SenatB7~43 and then the
on the prrd. (NYr).
the 1100•• of Repn:scntallves piISSCd a $690 defell8e Sjiemllog bDi despite a veto threat from the White House due to several bill provisioD3,
Inoluding onelhatwollld
limit Presitll!road,8Ild anothertbat
II(Idate. tne]lOS\-
9/11 Authmi ... tion fuyU.e ofMi1itaty For<:<: {AUMF), .1Id. would alTowthe president to ... -il ..... e,
praPubUca, NYT,.A-I'). For more an tho -R.,I1a trial and lheMumbai attDcki, stgll upfor tr.e.vPak DarTy Briv(FP).
CIA to !;et 1le<:e$:5 to bin Laden wmpOllDd
Exhibit 2
Page 63
:.-{
.:
"r
http:f /www.foreignpolicy.com/artlcies/2011/05127
~.
i.
,
Itl:ie_lwot~triot_actJenewed
.Just _bef...
9/1612011
FER193
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 7 Filed 09129/11 Page
of 158 Page ID
The LWOT: Patriot Act renewed just before dJM1!\§ - by Andrew Lebovich I Foreign Pol.. Page 3 of 4
oueement
Onder an
fo~nslcspeclalistl;
WSJ', Guardlaa,
weeli; betwel!ll CIA depulydll'ector
!'elI~hed eariier1his
will be iiIlowed&tartlng:taday
from!heCJA
Telegraph.
Micliaellllore1l
10 examlng
An. Tbe lemn will repoItedlybe
a learn of
~nd l'akisrani int.e1ligence clUe{ Lt. Gen. Ahmad Sho.ja l'aiha.
Oswntl bin Laden':) oolJlllound in Abbolt~bad,
Jooki"l; rorhldd ... document> withopccial
Pak1st!In(W""hinJ;ton
Post,
CNN,
"'IuipmOlltthat CIInpeer into walls and undor Roars.
!amen Gri .....aber and Kimberly Del:ior report tllat coeumenl>i ea.ptnred durillj;the May ~ raid that killed bin Laden..."cal that hi> knew ofplans to attaokElltDpe
last yea., and was ill eolltactwith al-Qaeda opendive Younis al-M.lIreb1n.i, who has a Morooean BlTe!ded in GQrmal1y last mCllltb fer
alJ"lfa I'IIid in early May in
thatloreign
fight=
~
a bll'" in cp.l bomb mal\ln' lbl1lhim oI-Asiri lAP. NPIlJ.
on May 26 convicted KaRrtllre of dewine .. at
~hume· CAP). Tn. investigatioll focuses on two
were abused at the p,;son.
"admillist",ti""
Th. U.S. mlli1"'1' tribunal.t()u.ntAnomo
detlri'Jlee5
denied the oletll"""Y~ppeal
Ii s=t
CIA prioon in the oounb}l from !he ...... May 24. citing an
cum:ntJy held at C ... ntBnomo, iIbd ol-Ramm aI-N ... hiri Alld Abu Zuboydeh.
dotainee Omar Khadr, who pled gun\)' I""tyeartl>
ofC"".dian
who 5BYthey
~ning. U.S. IlOldier in
MghBni&!BII in 2001/. and r• .,.;"ea eighty""r' in pri&on in a deal with prooeJi/I's~"''Cmment ill rcportcdlr oonoide:riBgtzying=pectcd
Indon.o:iIIn tel... rm Umsr Patl$, c.ptll,.d
invol".meJll inthe 200" Bali bomblDG9 tn.t !clUed ~o~ I)1:llpJe. 88 ofth.em Australian (Tho Al;e).
ACCIl$!ng,
the Unit<:r.
American 1010111
ne_ps~
and Dlila. American media .hDuld better
Inform people abouttnelr rl1lhl$ and obllgalfons l"9artllng nrearms
puro~QSe Bnd legal ~5aQa. But gov~mment also hes to be on the
American p~eple's slde Bnd Qe no! enuse such rBcoroa.
""LLOW
us ClIIlWlTT£ft
us o~ FACcUDOK
I VISIl'
PRIVACY
11iiHi1
L.sme.TNW.SUITESSO
FOReIGN
POLICY
IS PUBLISHED
AU.
COtnENl'I:
POI.ICY
I FOLLOW
I DISCL/dlll:1:t:
UB ON RIB
11RJ11SCRIEIE
I CONT,ILCT
00
'i'···
~'U\l3'HINGTON,
BY lHE
DC
S\.ATE GROUP.
200.1
PHONE;
A. CIIII$lctI
ClZlll't1lH6 fiLAlEGROUP.
2ai-7n-TaDD
OF1l1!
TQ
FDReIGH
POlleY
1FI'IX; ItlI-7D-T34~
l/IIAS~INGTotI
PDST C reporters have same-day access to the vast majority ofnewly
filed actions regardless of whether docketing has been completed. Reporters
review scanned copies of new complaints via PACER, and if a new case is not yet
scanned and available on the court's computer system, reporters can request and
are given a paper copy of the new action based on a listing of new filings in a red
log book made available to the press.
Brooklyn
At the Kings County Supreme Court, newly filed cases are typically scanned into
electronic form immediately after they ate filed. and the paper copies are then
placed in a designated media box for same day review. However, in the event
that a new complaint is not scanned immediately, the court will provide
Courthouse News' reporter With access to the unscanned document. Courthouse
News' reporter has been provided with a media pass that allows her to remove the
new filings from the media box and review them in a different area behind the
counter in the clerk's office on the same day the complaints are filed. Courthouse
News' reporter is free to make her own copies for a small fee.
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
.. r
~1J5D9 vi
Page 2
Exhibit 3
Page 69
FER200
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 73 of 158 Page ID
#:195
At the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, parties
file "press copies" of new complaints, which are placed into a press box that is
made available to reporters throughout the day, thereby allowing them same-day
access to the vast majority of new filings. even if the new filings have not been
fully processed or posted to PACER.
Chicago
At the Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Courthouse News' reporter, or any
other member of the media who is first to arrive at the courthouse, begins each
visit by going behind the counter to pick up the day's new complaints, and then
brings them to a press room located in the same building. The reporter sees the
vast majority of new complaints on the same day they are filed, regardless of
whether the complaints have been fully processed. Reporters can stay as late as
they like to review the new complaints.
At the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where
electronic filing of initiating documents is mandatory, newly filed complaints are
made available immediately upon filing through PACER, as well as the court's
own independent website.
."
Cincinnati
At the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati, Ohio, new
complaints are placed in the intake area for review by the media on the same day
the complaints are filed. Complaints are made available after they have been
date-stamped, but before any other processing occurs. Courthouse News'
reporter sees between 30-60 complaints each day. -If Courthouse News' reporter.
misses a complaint, he may request the file from the paper room staff the next
day. Court employees will make copies of newsworthy complaints available
upon request for 10 cents per page.
At the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, many ofthe
newly filed complaints are made available on the day of filing via PACER.
However, for cases not available electronically, the court places a copy of new
cases into a press box at
intake counter, where Courthouse News Service's
reporter may review them. until 4':06 p.m] when the court closes to the public.
The reporter may request copies of new complaints for 50 cents per page.
the
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
1i1150Y
yl uf
Page]
Exhibit 3
Page 70
FER201
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:19
Page 7 of 158 Page ID
Cleveland
At the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio, Courthouse
News' reporter has behind-the-counter access to new filings on the same day they
are filed, regardless of whether they have been fully processed. Complaints are
available as soon as they have been date-stamped. Court officials provide
Courthouse News' reporter with desk space to set up a laptop and scanner, and
allow him to disassemble the case file and scan the original filings. Use of the
office copy machines is also permitted when necessary.
At the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, new civil
cases can be filed either in person or electronically. Both cases filed
electronically and in person are made available on PACER on the same day they
are filed However, to view cases that are restricted from access via PACER or
cases that have not yet been posted to PACER, Courthouse News' reporter visits
the courthouse, where the court staff will print out a copy of any case he requests,
even if docketing has not been completed and regardless of how those complaints
were filed.
Columbus
....
T~·
.,
,
At the United States Distribt Court for ;tlie Southern District of Ohio in Columbus,
the vast majority ofneV'{"complaints are bade available on PACER promptly
upon filing. The court will also provide hard copies of any civil filings not
available on PACER on a same-day basis, but the speed with which cases are
posted to PACER generally makes this unnecessary.
Dallas
At the Dallas County District Court in Dallas, Texas, Courthouse News' reporter
is provided with behind-the-counter access to new petitions as soon as they are
filed and before any docketing has taken place. The court provides the reporter
with a place to work, where staffers in the clerk's office provide him with access
to the new petitions filed in paper form. As for e-filed petitions, Courthouse
News Service's reporter views some on a computer terminal in the clerk's office.
In many instances, however, petitions are not available on the terminal on a sameday basis, and the clerk's office provides him with paper printouts of those
petitions so that he can see them same-day,
,
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
11135119
vI £of
\.
PBge4
Exhibit 3
Page 71
FER202
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 75 of 158 Page 10
#:197
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas has developed
a process that ensures reporters have same-day access to all new complaints,
regardless of how far those complaints have progressed through the intake
process. On his daily afternoon visits to the court, Courthouse News' reporter
goes through a three-step process, described below. Leigh Lyon, Assistant Chief
Deputy of Operations, Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, has
Informed us that she would be happy to speak with court officials in other
jurisdictions about this system,
t~'
'
• First, Courthouse. News·' tbpol"'ttr checks a computer terminal in the clerk's
office to view summaries of the day's new complaints that have already
been made available on PACER. Courthouse News' reporter then uses his
own internet connection to immediately download documents he needs to
his laptop computer at the courthouse.
•
Second, Courthouse News' reporter checks for complaints that have been
scanned by the clerk's office, but are not yet available on PACER. These
complaints have been assigned a bar code and case number, and are made
available for electronic viewing at a public computer kiosk located in the
clerk's office, where the media can then review the new complaints on the
same day they are filed.
•
Finally, for complaints that are so new they have not yet been scanned,
Courthouse News' reporter views the paper versions of those new cases in
their case folder and makes copies of newsworthy complaints.
"
~,
Detroit
At the Wayne County Circuit Court, complaints are placed in a drawer in the
intake area of the clerk's office immediately after they are filed. Upon arriving at
the clerk's office at approximately 3:00 p.m., Courthouse News' reporter goes
behind the counter and first double-checks the previous day's complaints, which
are located in bundled folders behind the intake drawer, for any missed or lastminute filings from the day before. Then he turns to the intake drawer, where he
is permitted to review the newly filed complaints while standing behind the
counter. Most new complaints are in the drawer, but some are with the intake
clerks, who will share the complaints with the reporter for review. The reporter is
permitted to make his own copies of complaints using a copier located also
behind the counter, as well as an alternate copier on the other side of the cashier
station near the death certificates/marriage license area.
Media Access to COUTtliAround the Nation
U73~9
~I
sa r
Page 5
Exhibit 3
Page 72
FER203
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 7
"
Filed 09/29111
Page 7 of 158 Page ID
#:198
'L
At the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the court
provides access to newly filed complaints electronically via PACER, both online
and at computer terminals set up in the clerk's office.
Fort Worth
At the Tarrant County District Court in Fort Worth, most petitions appear on the
court's online system the day they are filed! except those cases that are mailed in
or filed by fax after the court closes at 5:00 p.m.) which are then made available
the following day. If any petition that was filed during court business hours is not
available online the day it is filed, Courthouse News' reporter arranges for the
petition to be immediately scanned and posted to the online access system. The
end result is that CourthouseNews' reporter is able to access almost all petitions
filed during court hours on the ~~e, day:they fire filed.
Houston
The Harris County Civil District Courts in Houston provided same-day access for
many years by permitting reporters to go behind the intake counters and review
newly filed petitions. In 2008, the clerk began requiring reporters to wait until
new petitions had been processed and posted on the clerk's website before they
could be reviewed, which delayed their availability by a day or more - sometimes
several days. After repeated attempts by Courthouse News to negotiate a solution
with the clerk's office failed to lead to a resolution, Courthouse News reluctantly
filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In July 2009, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction ordering the clerk to
provide same-day access to civil petitions, and finding that "the 24 to 72 hour
delay in access is effectively a denial of access and is, therefore,
unconstitutional," Courthouse News Service v. Jackson, et al., 2009 WL
2163609, at *4 (S.D. Tex. July 20,2009). In accordance with that injunction
order, the clerk's office began 'scanning new petitions and posting them to the
clerk's website the same day ,theY' are filed. Pursuant to a stipulated permanent
injunction entered by the court in March 2010, the clerk's office became
obligated not only to continue to provide same-day access to new civil filings, but
to pay more than $250,000 to Courthouse News to compensate it for the attorneys
fees it incurred in litigating the case. The stipulated permanent injunction did not
specify the particular manner in which same-day access must be provided, and the
clerk's office has chosen to comply with the order by continuing its practice of
posting new petitions on the clerk's website. Those petitions can be viewed, and
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
1'13509 vI
.at
Page 6
Exhibit 3
Page 73
FER204
Case 2:11-cv-OB083-R -MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 77 of158
Page ID
#:199
printouts can be made, free of charge by the media and other interested parties on
",
the day of filing. After that, pe~i~~ons
still be viewed without charge, but
printouts can be made only iftliey have
been certified. Once they are
certified - which usually occurs the day after filing - there is a fee to print out
copies of the petitions. Details about this program can be found on the Harris
County District Clerk's website, at
http://www.hcdistrictclerk.comlEdocs/Public/search.aspx
(see button: "Search
Today's Filings").
'cap
not
At the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. where
electronic filing is required for new cases, Courthouse News' reporter can view
electronic versions of cotnplaints that are already docketed and posted to PACER
on the same day they are filed. For any new complaint that has not yet been fully
docketed, the court wiU usually provide a hard copy regardless of how far along
the complaint is in the docketing process, also ,on the same day they are filed.
Indianapolis
At the Marion County Circuitand Sup-erior courts in Indianapolis, Indiana,
reporters view the vast maJor-ity:,()fn,ewfi,lings on a same-day basis in the clerk's
office. Reporters are given stacks of the' new filings, after they have been filed
and date stamped but before they are fully processed or sent to the proper court
division, and are allowed to go through them at tables in the public viewing area
from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Reporters can then make copies themselves on court
copy machines, which are then billed to Courthouse News Service monthly.
At the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. reporters
are provided with access to virtually all complaints filed on a same-day basis,
even if docketing has not been completed. When Courthouse News' reporter
arrives at the end of the day, the court staff gathers all ofthe civil cases filed
throughout the day and allows the reporter to review the complaints. The court
staffwill then make copies at a rate of 50 cents per page.
Las Vegas
At the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, reporters saw the
maj ority of new civil complaints on asame-day basis until the court switched to
mandatory e-filing in February 2(110·, F6110wing that switch, the court began
requiring news reporters to review new complaints at a computer terminal in the
clerk's office, but this system resulted in complaints not being available for
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
~1J~D9vi
saf
Page 7
Exhibit 3
Page 74
FER205
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 78 of 158 Page ID
#:200
viewing until the day after they were filed. The reason for these delays was that
new complaints did not appear on the computer terminals until after they had
been "accepted" by the clerk's office, and only after the terminals had been
updated to reflect the new filings. After Courthouse News brought these delays
to the attention of the court, the court adopted a new system: an electronic in-box,
through which complaints can be viewed on a computer terminal as soon as they
cross the e1ectronic version of the intake counter at the clerk's office, even if they
have not yet been fully processed. Through this system, which is similar to the
electronic in-box access procedures ~n~!pl~ce numerous federal district courts
at
(many of which are described ill this" survey), Courthouse News is now seeing
new e-filed complaints on a same-day basis.
At the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Courthouse News'
reporter can view electronic versions of the majority of new complaints on a
same-day basis on PACER Complaints that are not made available on the day
they are :filed are usually made available on the following day.
Los AngeJes
At the Downtown (Stanley Mosk Courthouse) branch of the Superior Court of
California in Los Angeles, court staffupload the full text of newly filed
complaints to the court's computer system after initial intake tasks, which include
scanning and assigning a case number, have been completed. Reporters can then
review the vast majority of new actions that are filed on a particular day at
terminals located at the courthouse that are available to the general public, or on
additional terminals located ia'a designated press room. Both the filing roomincluding the intake and processihg, areas-« and the area in which the general
public view cases close
4:30 p.m., but'the press room remains open later and
even the latest filings of the day are available and can be reviewed by 7:00 p.m.
About 110 new civil, general jurisdiction cases are filed each day.
at
At the Santa Monica Courthouse of the same court, face pages of each day's
newly filed complaints are made available for review at 3 :30 p.m. on the same
day the complaints are filed. Courthouse News' reporter then requests copies of
those complaints for which she wants to see the full-text versions. The full text of
late-filed complaints is made available at 4:30 p.m., when the filing room court
closes its doors to the public but where the courthouse employees continue to
work unti15:00 p.m. Courthouse News' reporter can then request copies of any
of those late-filed complaints, and they are generally provided right away.
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation"
Page B
.; :{~:
:':
··1
f.-)\:
Exhibit 3
Page 75
]'i
FER206
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
D6cument'7l;·
Filed 09/29/11
. .', ~#:2Q1
Page 79 of 158
Page 10
At the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a room is
set up directly off the docketing department with a set of pass-through boxes.
Sometime between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m., a court staffer places a large majority of
the civil complaints filed that day in the pass-through boxes so that the media can
review them. Reporters that cover the courthouse on a daily basis have a key to
the room, which is otherwise locked, and they can stay as long as they want to
look over the complaints and rulings, copy those of interest, and put the
documents back in the pass-through boxes.
Louisville
At the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Louisville, Kentucky, the clerk's staff
makes a copy of the front page of all complaints filed throughout the day and
places the coversheets on a~table~jnJ1:te~p~blic
area of the office. Courthouse
News' reporter then reviews the stack of cover sheets and requests any complaints
he determines to be newsworthy on the same day they are filed. The clerk's
office will make copies for him at a rate of25 cents per page.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky in
Louisville has adopted an e-filing system requiring initiating documents to be
filed electronically. Courthouse News' reporter is able to review newly filed
complaints in exactly the same format as th.ey are received in the clerk's office,
prior to being docketed and before they are available to the public on PACER, by
using a shel1 case number code to access an electronic press queue of new filings
on PACER, both online and at public computer terminals at the courthouse.
Manhattan
At the New York County Supreme Court, where certain case types are required to
be e-filed, new complaints are made available to reporters on the same day they
are filed, whether they are fil€fd in paper or electronic fonn. E-filed cases are
posted online to a court website~bythe ehd of the day they are filed, while new
complaints filed in paperform
indexed and scanned shortly after being filed,
and made available electronically via an internal computer system on terminals
set up throughout the courthouse. At 3:30 p.m., and then at regular intervals until
4:45 p.m., the paper versions of the new complaints are then placed by court
officials in a secure area behind the counter where reporters are free to review
them on a same-day basis.
are
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
fnH~~ vi uf
Page 9
Exhibit 3
Page 76
FER207
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:202
~t....
1.i
Page 80 of 158
Page 10
~l
th~
At the United States District Court for
Southern District of New York,
reporters are permitted to view new civil complaints three times a day - between
9:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m., between 11:30 a.m. and 12:15 p.m., and between 3:45
p.m. and 4:30 p.m. - on the same day the complaints are filed.
Martinez
At the Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez, California, the court
closes its doors to the public at 3:00 p.m. each day. However, those still in line at
that time are allowed to remain in the clerk's office to complete their filings. and
the clerks staff continue their work at the court until at least 5:00 p.m. Although
Courthouse News had previously experienced delays in access at this court, court
staff recently implemented new access procedures after Courthouse News brought
the issue of delays to the attention of both the court's head clerk and its presiding
judge. Under those procedures, filed civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints are
placed in a media bin at approximately 4:00 p.m. each day, and Courthouse News'
reporter is permitted to remain ~tthe court until 4:45 p.m. to review those
complaints, the result of'whlch j's same-day access to the vast majority of newly
filed unlimited jurisdiction complaints. l
Miami
At the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, electronic
filing of new civil complaints is mandatory, and new complaints that are filed
before 5 :00 p.m. appear on PACER on the same day they are filed. Cases filed
after 5:00 p.m. appear on PACER the following day.
Milwaukee
At the Milwaukee County Court in Wisconsin, reporters have access to new
complaints on the day they are filed, even if they have not yef been fully
processed, and are permitted to go behind the counter. Reporters can request
copies of complaints from court personnel for a small fee.
At the United States District ~o.\lrt f~r"~~astern District of Wisconsin, most
E
new complaints are e-filed and availableielectronically through PACER on the
same day they are filed. However, for those cases that are not immediately
posted to PACER) court staff provides reporters with the original paper versions
of the new complaints, also on the same day they are filed. Reporters are then
able to make copies at a copy machine for anomina1 fee.
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
~73~D~ •• f
vi
Page 10
Exhibit 3
Page 77
FER208
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 81 of 158 Page ID
#:203
MinneapoliS/St.
Paul
At both the Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis and the Ramsey
County District Court in S~.~~q!"'\yhet~::many the new complaints are filed by
of
mail, Courthouse News'.repcrter is(pe~itted to go behind the counter to review
the stack of original complaints on the same day they are filed and before they are
docketed. Because the reporter visits Ramsey County only three times per week,
she is unable to review all cases on the same day they are filed, but is able to
search for and view the cases she has missed on a computer terminal at the
courthouse
next time she visits the court. The reporter is able to make her
own copies in Hennepin County, where Courthouse News has established a copy
account. In Ramsey County, for cases the reporter reviews on the day of filing,
the court staff will make copies of any complaint the reporter requests. For cases
she reviews after the day offiling, the reporter is able to print a copy directly
from the computer terminal.
the
At the United States District Court for District of Minnesota, reporters begin their
visit by using a computer terminal at the courthouse to view an intake log of new
cases. From there, reporters review complaints available on PACER using a
public computer terminal in the clerk's office. If a complaint shown on the intake
log of new cases is not yet av~lable 01). PACER, the court will print out a copy
for the reporter. The clerk.charges 10 cents per page for any copies that reporters
request.
.,
Nashville
At the Davidson County Chancery Court in Nashville, Courthouse News' reporter
reviews an intake log of the day's new filings on a public computer terminal at
the courthouse. She then compiles a list of the relevant cases and presents the list
to the court staff, who retrieve the requested cases and allow her to review the
complaints regardless of whether the docketing process has been completed.
At the Davidson County Circuit Court, most new complaints are scanned
throughout the day and are made available through a government website on the
same day they are filed.
At the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. the
clerk's staff are required to stay one hour after closing in order to scan all new
filings and post them onto PA~R on 'the day they are filed,
"
..'
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
#73509 vi $1/'
.:':!'~~..,
.
~-:..
~
Page 11
Exhibit 3
Page 78
FER209
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:20
Page 82 of 158 Page ID
Oakland
Although the Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, California, endeavors
to make newly filed complaints available for viewing on its website on a sameday basis, it has implemented procedures to ensure that news reporters who visit
the Rene C. Davidson courthouse can obtain same-day access to those complaints
that would otherwise not be posted for electronic viewing on a same-day basis.
Under those procedures, reporters are provided with access to a workstation
behind the intake counter. TlJ:estatio~,.i~ equipped with a computer connected to
the Internet. Courthouse News'creporter first reviews the cases that are made
available online. For those cases that are.not available online by the end of the
work day but are of media interest, court staffers scan and make those cases
available on their website.
Oklahoma
City
At the Oklahoma County Court, intake clerks place all of the day's new petitions
into a central basket by 3: 15 p.m. Petitions placed in the basket have been date
stamped, but have not been fully docketed - only indexed. A member of the
clerk's staff then provides the petitions to Courthouse News' reporter, and the
reporter is instructed to sign the back of each petition to ensure that she has seen
them all. After she has completed her review of the petitions in the basket,
Courthouse News' reporter is permitted to review any further petitions that have
been filed, indexed and placed in the basket after 3:15 p.m. The reporter may
request copies of petitions at a rate of $1.00 for the first page and 50 cents for all
subsequent pages.
• •••
I
'.
•
/.
"
. ~
"\
~'.l'
C
..
,"
",omaha
At the Douglas County District Court, where new complaints can be filed
electronically or in paper form, new cases are immediately indexed and added to
a statewide computer database that is updated on an hourly basis. Courthouse
News' reporter reviews the index information for relevant cases on a courthouse
computer terminal and downloads images as they become available, Downloads
are free at the courthouse, but are also available online via the statewide Justice
website for a fee.
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
117350'3 vI
Page 12
,.r
Exhibit 3
Page 79
,
..
FER210
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
j'
#:205
Page 83 of 158
Page ID
Orlando
At the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Courthouse News' reporter reviews hard
copies of newly filed complaints at a designated desk behind the counter. The
staff places new complaints that have not undergone any processing (i.e.,
docketed, jacketed or assigned a case number) near the reporter's desk each day
for same-day viewing. Since some complaints have been docketed by the time
Courthouse News' reporter arrives, these complaints are placed in a separate pile
for the reporter's review before they are moved to a separate desk for scanning by
4:00 p.m, In addition, Courthouse News' reporter is permitted to review e-filed
complaints and complaints that have been docketed and scanned by the time the
reporter arrives on a same-day basis using one of the clerk's terminals located
behind the counter.
At the United States District Co~rt for ili~
Middle District of Florida in Orlando,
where electronic filing is mandatory, the court posts the majority of new civil
filings to PACER on the same day they are filed.
Phoenix
At the Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix, Arizona, court staff recently
implemented new procedures to ensure same-day access to civil complaints filed
at its downtown location. Under the new procedures, court staff scan and upload
for electronic viewing all complaints filed before 3 :00 p.m., which are then made
available on a designated press computer located in the Customer Service Center
for Courthouse News' reporter to review and, if necessary, print. Complaints
filed between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. are immediately placed in a bin at a designated
intake window in the Central Court Building, where Courthouse News' reporter
may review those complaints between 4:00 and 5;00 p.m.
Pittsburgh
At the Allegheny County- Court of Common Pleas in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
where the court has implemented an internally operated electronic filing system,
nearly all of the day's new filings are available on-line on a same-day basis.
Complaints not posted to the court's website on the day of filing are made
available the following day.
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
v ,ar
/l73S0~ I
Page l3
Exhibit 3
Page 80
FER211
Case 2:11-cv-OB083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:20
Page 8 of 158
Page 10
In the United States District Court for ~e Western District of Pennsylvania,
where electronic filing is mandatory, Courthouse News' reporter has been
provided with an "Me" ·case number code for PACER that allows her to view the
new filings before they are docketed.
Portland
At the Multnomah County Court in Portland, Courthouse News' reporter is given
a stack of the current day's newly filed complaints, which she reviews at a cubicle
behind the counter. The reporter can make any needed copies herself using her
own portable scanner.
At the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Courthouse News'
reporter first searches for newly filed complaints through the court's "electronic
in-box," which is available on a public access terminal at the courthouse and
contains those complaints that the clerks have scanned but not yet processed and
posted to PACER. She then searches for processed complaints on PACER;, which
are also available at a public access terminal at the courthouse. Finally, the clerks
give Courthouse News' reporter papercopies of those complaints that have not
yet been scanned and postedelth'6:r to th~ electronic in-box or to PACER. The
clerks will also review the court's record book with Courthouse News' reporter at
the end of the day to make sure that no filings have been missed.
Riverside
At the Superior Court for the State of Cali fornl a, County of Riverside, new
complaints are scanned and made available for electronic viewing via the court's
website and at computer terminals in the courthouse. The press had been
experiencing delays in access for years until a new clerk, formerly from the
United States District Court for the Central District of California, carne on board.
The clerk found that same-day access could be achieved simply by shifting the
schedules of the personnel who scan complaints so that they begin and end work
later in the day, thus ensuring that the vast majority of new complaints would be
made available for electronic viewing on a same-day basis.
.-
St. Louis
c~~
..
I,
At the St. Louis City Circuit
In Mfssouri, Courthouse News' reporter goes
to the intake window where cases are filed and clerk's office staff members hand
the reporter a stack of new cases fiied that same day. Courthouse News' reporter
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
I17J50~
vi .of
Page 14
Exhibit 3
Page 81
FER212
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:207
Page 85 of 158 Page ID
works at the counter next to the intake window; however, members of the media
can also work at a table near the window. Staff members in the clerk's office will
provide members of the media with copies of newsworthy new cases free of
charge.
At the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Miss our it where
new complaints must be electronicallyfiled, each case is assigned a case number
upon filing by the attorney "and i's"'immedjately made available on PACER, even if
it has not been fully reviewed and processed. Courthouse News' reporter is able
to view the new complaints on a computer terminal in the clerk's office and print
out copies for a small fee.
.
San Francisco
At the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, news
reporters are allowed behind the counter into the stacks to review unlimited
numbers of new filings after providing a driver's license and filling out a
temporary name tag. The number of new filings per day varies, but often exceeds
50. Courthouse News views new complaints regardless of whether they have
been fully processed. San Francisco Superior has established a written protocol
for members of the press. The key provisions are quoted below:
If media personnel want to review files already on the shelves. they
can pull these files themselves and return them to the shelves.
: )"
': .!
.
All new filings will be"h~foina ~-edia Box during the day. Between
3 :00 and 4:30 each day, this box
be available to the media for
viewing in the Records department, whether or not the cases have
been entered in the computer. At 4:00 PM~ when the office closes to
the public, media personnel may ask to view any additional filings
that may have come in since 3:00 PM, The Records supervisor or an
assigned clerk will retrieve those files for the media to view. Any
member ofthe media viewing new filings must return them to the
box for eventual return to the Records supervisor or assigned clerk.
will
Media personnel may come in anytime before 3 :00 PM to view new
filings. However, they will only be viewing cases newly filed up
until that time.
Media Access to Courts Around the Natio~
1113509 vi sar
Page 15
.~.
Exhibit 3
Page 82
FER213
,
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN
·
-.
r •
.'
-!
Document? 1: Filed 09/29/11
#:208
Page 8 of 158 Page ID
Copy machine from the second floor Media Room will be moved to
Room 103 and located behind the Records department. This
machine belongs to Courthouse News Service, but has been made
available to ail media personnel for their use.
At the San Francisco Division of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, reporters go behind the counter and review actions filed
that same day, regardless of whether the complaints have been fully docketed or
posted on PACER. They are also permitted access to "transfer boxes" of new
actions being sent to different divisions ofthe court, and are provided with a copy
of the intake log. Reporters are permitted to make copies of cases they determine
to be newsworthy using a portable scanner.
San'Jose
At the Santa Clara County Superior Court in San Jose, California, the court
recently implemented new procedures to ensure that reporters receive same-day
access to the vast majority of each day's new civil unlimited jurisdiction
complaints. Under those procedures, civil unlimited complaints are made
available to Courthouse News' reporter upon receipt of the filing fee, the
assignment of a case number, and the assignment of a first status conference date,
even though processing of the new complaint is far from over at this juncture.
Complaints that are filed over the counter by 3 :30 p.m. are made available to
Courthouse News' reporter on the same day they are filed. All unlimited
jurisdiction complaints that are in the drop box by 4:00 p.m. are also made
available to Courthouse News on the same day they are filed. Unlimited
jurisdiction complaints that EU'eiled over the counter between 3:30 p.m. and the
f
clerk's office closing at 4:00 p.m. have been designated as a staff priority, and the
court endeavors to make them available for review on the same day they are filed.
Courthouse News' reporter it'permitted to remain at the court until 4:30 p.m., one
half-hour after closing, to review late-filed cases. The court makes copies of
complaints as requested by the reporter.
At the San Jose Division of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, clerks print out a list of all new complaints filed earlier that
day. Reporters go behind the counter, obtain complaints from individual clerks'
desks, report on and scan any newsworthy complaints, and then return the
complaints to the clerks' desks.
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
N73S~9
vl
,~r
Page 16
Exhibit 3
Page 83
FER214
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:209
Page 87 of 158 Page ID
,.J
At the King County Superior Court, CoUrthouse News' reporter is provided with
a docket report of new cases two times per day - once at 11 :00 a.m. and again at
3 :00 p.rn. The 11:00 a.m. list includes all cases that have been filed from 3:00
p.m. on the previous day through 11:00 a.m. on the current day, while the 3:00
p.rn. list includes new cases that have been filed from II :00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m, that
day. The reporter reviews each list to fmd relevant cases, then searches for and
views new complaints on a computer terminal at the courthouse. She is able to
print out relevant complaints for 15 cents per page.
Tampa
At the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, new complaints that are hand-filed in
the main courthouse are made available for review by reporters at the end of the
day they are filed. Most complaints are scanned by court staff and made available
on the court's public access terminals for review. Those complaints that are not
scanned and available on the-public access terminals by 4:00 p.m. are provided in
paper form for news reporters, who' b.aV~ until the court closes at 5:00 p.m. to
review those late-filed complaints.
'
Wilniington
At the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, new complaints
can be filed either in paper form. or electronically. Courthouse News' reporter
can view e-filed complaints on PACER almost immediately after they are filed by
using a shell case number code to access an online press queue of new electronic
filings. The reporter also visits the court on a daily basis and is able to review the
vast majority of new complaints filed in paper form on the same day those
complaints are filed. Court staff will make copies of paper-filed cases for 10
cents per page.
=r
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
§73SiJ? vI ~.f
1
Page 17
Exhibit 3
Page 84
FER215
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09129/11
#:210
Page 88 of 158 Page ID
EXHmIT4
r'
J
FER216
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:211
Page 89 of 158
Page 10
Bill Girdner
From:
eNS LA Fed [Iafed@courthousenews.com]
Tuesday, September 06, 20118:05 PM
CNS Circulation
CNS Los Angeles Federal Report Sap 06, 2011
BlackBerry Version - eNS Los Angeles Federal Report Sep 06,2011 (702882).txt; eNS Los
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Angeles Federal Report Sep 06, 2011 (7021362).rtf
CourthQuse News Service Filter and Expon
DaTAbase Search
lli!lgID.
Los Angeles Federal Report
September 06, 2011
The report below may Dot be transmitted through any means outside the office locatlon tIIat Is subscrlbtng, but may be copted fteely
within that 10(:81lon.A separate subscrIption is required for each office Iocatlon that recelves the report, If you need help finding
underlying documents, please call or email Violet Enciallot llIfed@courthousenewB.com or (213) 626-2428. The summaries below
descn"bo allegations only and should not be taken as fact.
Western
A11ana Boroni; Dean Copper;
Brenda Copper; Trael Gehm;
Christopher Grossman; Gerard
Cannella; Melanie Cannella;
Rebecca Abad; Gina Adams;
Rick Adams; Debbie Abeel;
Bibian Afable; Michael Akin;
Nicole Akin; Suren Alaverdyao:
Edevin AldanB; Karl Amrine;
James Anthony Alauria; Elmer
US DC Central Districl of Caurornla
Division. Los Angeles, Ealtern Dlvlskm - Riverside
Complaint fOT violation of civil rights, injunction under
the F~~ralJroulJction {,\oct. laintiff's in this case represent
P
U~ citizens who have hired Mitchell Stein to represent
them in lawsutts that have been filed, or will be filed,
against Bank
America and 13 other financial
institutions. On 8/17/2011, defendant Harris grossly
Mitchell Stein
or
violated plaintiffs' civil rights by seizing plaintiffs' legal
files and denying plaintiffs the right to the legal counsel of
their choice.
Free downlQad
Anderson; Bric Anderson;
Sabrina Anderson; Pamela
Anderson; Donald Andrews;
David Appel; Scott Armstrong;
Alex Bacaron; John Bahura;
Cheryl Bailar; William Barber;
Bruce Barmakian; Rodrick
Barnett; David Beaebian; Tom
Beiner; Joseph Bell: Andres
Benavidez; George Bennett;
Amana Bennett; Robert Berry;
John Booth; Edward Bostock;
Patrick Boyd; Suzanne BrlttanBergman; Vicki Brock;
JOM
Brown; Diane Brown; Dexter
Brown; Toby Butterworth;
(,
L.
Bonnie Butterwor!b; Eduardo
Cabasal; Jessica Cabasal; Harry
Campbell; Nelida Campos; Jose
Campos; Mwia Carino: Richard
Carrol; Shawn Cassidy; Jose
Castro; Steve Cater; Carla
Exhibit 4
Page 85
FER217
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 90 of 158· Page 10
#:212
Cayler; Nonn Cayler; Francis
Celo; Eloy Certeza; Tina Certeza;
John Charlson; Catherine
Charlson; Mark Chasteen; Vipin
Chaturvedi; Joseph Chavoen;
Ana Vilma Guandlque Cisneros;
Grant Clark; Sonia Clark;
Geoffrey Cockrell; Danielle
Cockrell; Hugh Collins; Arturo
Concha; Kat Conway; Randall
Cook; Denise Cook; Cary Cruz;
WilIillm Cubias; Barbara Curtis;
Houston Curtis; Eric Cutler;
Ricardo Davalos; Darkis
Davoddaniel; Don Decker; David
De Leon; Nicholas Deite); paz
Diaz; Jose Duarte; Ana Duenas;
Olic Dunning 111;Hotosa
Ebrahimzadeh; Steven Ehlers;
Mehrdad Emesha; Martin
Escobedo; Ty Etterlein; Michelle
FIIV82Z0; Roger Fenstermacher,
Sally Figueiredo; Fumiko Fisher;
Robert Fitzgerald; Corey Flinn;
Roger Fosdick; Susan Francho:
James Fraser; D'Ann Friend;
Matthew Friend; Matthew
Friend; Barbara Gibbs; Robert
Graham; Walter Grubic; Diane
Gtubic; Magdalena Guizar;
Maria Guzman; Richard Hale;
Jack Halley; Allison Hanson;
Steven Hardie; Cindy Harrison;
Tom Herbst; Mario Herrera;
Darlene Holloway; Ralph
Holloway, Pat Hunt; Harley
Hunter; Jean Hunter; Rebecca
Ignacio; Joseph Ignacio;
Clarence Irving; Evelyn Irving;
Art Imrbe; Athena Jackson; Glen
Jackson; Tyrone Javellana; Kevin
Jopes; Diane Kepley; Kevin
Kechi; Jay Kim; Lynn Kimberly;
Steve Kong; Brent Komourous;
NBI1cy Kl1UItz; Gladys Krentz;
Dean Kraemer; Joshua Kreitzer;
Peter Kreuzer; Jackie Kreuzer;
MBnLJel Landovazo; Stephanie
Landen; Jennifer Langlo; Ashley
Larsen; Christian Larsen; Bruce
Lawson; Lisa Lawson; Travis
Leage; A lyssa Leigh; Bobbie
Leonard; Ken Leon; Mark Lilly;
Cannen Linares; lames Locker;
Adelfo Macasa; Bruce MacBride;
Carrie MacBride; Marco MlIChm;
2.
Exhibit 4
Page 86
FER218
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Filed 09/29/11
Document 7
Page 91 of 158
Page 10
#:213
Louis Miges; Stefan Mahalcy;
Denise Manriquez; Jose Marlo;
Eduardo Marquez; Elnora
Marshall; Janet Marshall; Julio
Martin; Frank Martinez; Frank. A.
Martinez; Patrick Martinez;
Elizabeth Matsik; Mary Medina;
Gloria Melo; Scan McDonald;
Bruce Milligan; Anila Molnar;
Veronica Monterrubio; Toby
Moore; Leonidis Morales; Juan
Carlos MorriIJo; Erica Morgera;
Basheer Murad; YOIIlI1I1
Natividad: Joe Navarro; Micah
Neely; Richard Neely; Scott
Newton; Karen Nierbab; Editha
Nepomuceno; Emesto
Nepomuceno; Alan Ness;
Catherine Nun; John Ocampo;
Roman Olivos; Juan Padilla;
Macia. Padilla; Socorro Pareda;
Alan Parsons; Angela Parada;
Kasimlr Patelski; Cindy Petelski;
Don Peden; Diane Perrera; Raul
Pemett; James Peterson; Paul
Pirtle; Lee Poindexter, Leslie
Pollack; Douglas Powers; Carol
Powers; Ana Maria Prezio;
Steven Quick; Rebecca Quick;
William Rabello: Luz Miriam
Ramirez; Silvia Rendon; Editha
Restauro; Nancy Heller Riley;
Nooro!lah Rahdar; Seyed Razavi;
Debra Rein; Arthur Rodriguez;
Ofelia Romero; Florence
Sabagquit; Jesse Sabagquit;
Sherry Safko: Derrick Sanders;
Carl Sanko; Reginald Santiago;
Simon Sarkisian; Jose Saucedo;
Randy Scarberry; Jeannie
Scarberry; Cranford Scott; Sheila
Scott; Courtney Scott; Juanita
Scott; Brian Sexson; Terry
Shaeffer; Peter Sheldon; Scot!
Shubb; Martin Silva; Kenneth
Simonsen; Sheryl Simonsen;
Baldev Singh; Baljlt Singh; Nida
Singh: Michael Smith; William
Smith.; Mark. Smith; Charles
Crayton Smith; Robert Smith;
Milton Smith II; Robert Snyder;
Valerie Snyder, Joanne Snyder
Davidson; Hernaltha SourlParsons; Iliana Sorensen; Rosario
Maria Soto; Barbara Sponster;
Rayetta Stanley; Del Staudinger;
3
Exhibit 4
Page 87
FER219
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09J29J11
#:21
Page 92 of 158 Page 10
Tracey Hampton·Stein; Paul
Strohecker; Lidia Iapill; Bob
Tidd; Betty Timbers; Greg
Townsend; Charlotte Tucker;
Jodi Tuft; Timothy Tuma; Mary
Turna; Malcom Turner; Marilla
Vanderwall; Ronnie Van Green;
Mitch Van Mechlon; Lisa
Vasquez; Enrique Villanueva;
Rebecca Villanueva; Nadia
Villareal; Christopher Vlllaruz;
Linda Vo; Hui Vo; Patrick
Vuong; Laura W~lldheim;
Victoria Wallace; Zane Walker;
Melissa Warner; Gurmeet
Wllraich; Harjinder Wamich;
Walter Weiss; Gunter
Weissmann; Sherry SmithWeissmann; Edna Wenning;
Veronica Widener; Todd
Widener; Timothy Widlund;
Melissa Widlund; Craig
Williams; Richard Wilson; Jon
Withrow; Natasha Yusla; Luis
Zavala; George Zink; Mitchell
Stein; Mitchell Stein &
Associates LLP; ROell
v.
State of California; County of
Los Angeles; City of Los
Angeles: Kamala Harris;
Benjamin Diehl: James Toma;
Tile State Bar of Cal ifomia; Does
9/6/20 II 2: II cv 7303 CBM
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Colette Von Kaenel
v.
Skinny Girl Cocktails LLC; SGC
Global LLC; Beam Global Spirits
&. Wine Ine.; lim Beam Brands
Co.
9/612011 2: 11 cv 7305 JAK
(Western Divisioa- Los Angeles)
Tuan Dang
v.
AT &. T Mobility LLC, a
Delaware LLC; AT & T Inc, a
Delaware corp.; AT & T Corp., a
Class action complaint for common law fraud, breach of
express WlUTIlIlty. This is a class action on behalf of
consumers who purchased defendants' Skinnyglrl
Margarita beverage which purports to be "All Natural"
and containing "1l0 preservatlvea, I, even though the
beverage product contains synthetic sodium benzoate.
Daniel Tamez
Gnau & Tamez Law
Group- San Diego
Free download
Complaint for damages, violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Plaintiffwas often required to work while
he was "punched out"
Joel Bryant
Green Bryant & FrenchSan Diego
Free download
New York corp.; AT & T
Mobility Wireless Operations
Holdings Inc., a Delaware corp.;
Does
916flJ) 11 2: 11 ev 7307 GW
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Exhibit 4
Page 88
FER220
Case 2:11-cv-OB083-R
-MAN
Novart Kasbarian, as
administrator of the Bstate of
Kasbar Kasbarian
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:215
Page 93 of 158
Page 10
ViolatiGn of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fajr
Debt Collection Practices Act.
Free download .
Tammy Hussin
Lemberg & AssociatesCarlsbad
Matthew Jones
v.
Dirt Blossom lnc.; David
Jacobson: Larry Rattner; Does
9/612011 2: I I ev 7311 JHN
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Copyright lnfringement action over plaintiff's screenplay
entitled "Boot Tracks, "
Free downl()ad
Arthur Aaronson
Aaronson & Aaronson
Rosa Hernandez
Complaint for breach of express warranty, strict liability,
defective design. Defendants' prescription drug Actos and
pioglitarone hydrochloride caused plaintiffs bladder
cancer.
Free download
Joseph Maher
Weitz & Luxenberg
Complaint for breach of express warranty, strict liability,
defective design, Defendants' prescription drug Actos and
pioglitezone hydrochloride caused plaintiff Howard
Geiser's bladder cancer.
Free download
Joseph Maher
Weitz & Luxenberg
Trademark and cop)"Tigittinfringement action over
counterfeit "Mophje~ branded products. Plaintiff is a
designer and manufacturer of mobile intelligent devices an
Christopher Johnson
Johnson & Pham LLP
v.
Chase Bank USA
9/612011 2: 11 cv 7309 CAS
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
v.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals North
America lnc.; Takeda
Phannaceuticals International
Jnc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited; Takeda
Pharmaceuticals LLC; Takeda
Global Research &. Development
Center lnc.; Takeda San Diego
Inc.; Does
9/6120 II 2: II cv 7320 JAK
(Western Division- Los Angeles)
Howard Geiser; Rona Geiser
v.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals North
America Inc.; Takeda
Pharmaceuticals International
Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited; Takeda
Pharmaceuticals LLC; Takeda
Global Research & Development
Center Inc.; Takeda San Diego
Inc.: Does
91612011 2: I 1 cv 1321 PSG
(Western Divislon- Los Angeles)
Mcphie Inc., f.k.l!. mStation
COrp.
v.
Wan Ma, ak.a. Raymond Ma;
accessories.
Does
Free download
9/612011 2:11 cv 7323 CBM
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
The Independent Order of
Foresters
v.
John Mungo; Beacon Crest
Complaint for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organlzarions Act, constructive trust and
Michael Ben
accounting.
Free download
Sorensen
Burke Williams &
5
Exhibit 4
Page 89
FER221
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 9 of 158 Page
to
#:21
Flnancial·and Insumnce Services;
Steven Kwizera; Julius Katega;
Solomon Kisekka; Cheche
Momodu; Damiano Klgeye;
Andrew Muhumuz.a; Sharon
Komwaro; Oeorge Agaba; Rose
Severino; Maria Malek; Marie
Kahmgi; Ronnie Kamara:
Michael Lyadda; Patricia Torres
91612011 2: 11 cv 7326 ODW
.
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
..
Mophie Inc.• f.k.a. mStation
Corp.
v.
Amber Ade; Does
916/2011 2: 11 cv 7327 VBF
(Western Division" Los Angeles)
Mophie Inc., f.k.!!. mStation
Corp.
v.
Trademark and copyright infringement action over
counterfeit "Mophie" branded products. Plaintiff is a
designer and manufacturer of mobile intelligent devices an
accessories.
Free download
Christopher Johnson
Johnson & Phem LLP
Trademark and copyright infringement action over
counterfeit "Mcphie" branded products. Plaintiff is II
designer and manufacturer of mobile intelligent devices
Christopher Johnson
Johnson & Pham LLP
110
Ronald Reeves; Does
9/6120 II 2: 1t Cy 7328 SVW
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
IlCCC590rics.
Free download
Mophie Ine., f.k.a, rnStlltion
Trademark and copyright infringement action over
counterfeit "Mcphie" branded products. Plaintiff is a
designer and manufacturer of mobile intelligent devices an
accessories.
Free download
Christopher Johnson
Johnson & Pham LLP
Trademark and copyright infringement action over
counterfeit "Mophie" branded products, Plaintiff is a
deSigner and manufacturer of mobile intelligent devices an
accessories.
Free download
Christopher Johnson
Johnson & Pham LLP
Class action complaint on behalf of ill I California
homeowners whose loans have been originated by
defendant Indymac Bank u:!ing signifiCllntly reduced
underwriting standards designed 10 allow borrowers to
obtain mortgage without proper verificatlon ofincome,
no-doe and no money down programs, offering extremely
risky credit terms to borrowers such as negative
amortization, interest only payment options and,
adjustable rate mortgage terms that defendant knew would
be unsustainable far borrowers,
Free download
Khihn Yam
Corp.
v,
Sidrah Qadeer, a.k.a, Sidrah
Ahmed; Does
9/612011 2: II cv 7329 JFW
(Western Division- Los Angeles)
Mcphie Inc.• f.k.a. mStation
Corp.
v.
Chad Nordby; Wibu Ventures
Ine., a Minnesota corp.; Does
9/612011 2:11 cv 7331 DSF
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Ot Bonsynat; Tom Casault
v.
Independent National Mortgage
Corp .• e.k.a, lndymac Bank;
Onewest Bank; 1MB Holdco
LLC; 1MB Management
Holdings LP; Dune Capital LLC;
JC Flowers & Co.: MSD Capital
LP; Stone Point Capital; Soms
Fund Management LLCi SSP
Offshore LLC; Paulson & ce,
Silar Advisors LP: SiJar MCF-I
LLC; Aurora Mortgage Services
LLC; US BIUlk National Trust, as
6
Exhibit 4
Page 90
FER222
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 , Filed 09/29/11
Page 95 of 158
Page 10
#:217
trustee for Lehman XS Trust
Mortgage Pass- Through
Certificates Series 2007-12N;
Federal Natiol12llMortgage
Association, a.k.a. FNMA or
Fannie Mile
9/6/2011 8: II cv 134S CJe
(Western Division· L05 Angeles)
Danny Joe Hirschfield
v,
U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Officer Edward Lott
9/6/201 [ 2: II cv 1237
(unassigned)
(Western Dlvlsion- Los Angeles)
IFP: Violatin ofdvil rights.
Nancy Dardarian
Class ootioli'cornpJaint'for violations of'the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act. (Case in other court: Cal ifornia Northern.
3: II-cv-00948.)
v.
Sur La Table, Inc., a Washington
corp.
9/6120112;11 cv 7301 ODW
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Cannille Johnson
Removal of complaint for violations oflhe Americans
v.
With Disabilities Act, negligence,
Pepsico lnc.; New Bern
Transport Corp, Inc.; Does
9/612011 2: II cv 7308 JFW
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Cecilia Medina
v.
Bouchard
p: Tim Hoffman
Hoffman & LazearOakland
d; Scott Jacobs
Reed Smith
p: Eugene Feldman
d: James Berry
Berry & Lussier
Removal of complaint for sexual harassment in
employment, battery, failure to preventhamssment.
p: Robert Tafoya
TafOY/l &, Garcia LLP
d: Cynthia Filla
Jackson Lewis LLP
Removal of class act Ion complaint for labor code
violations. Macy's routinely requires all of their employees
to perform ll~aid work "off the clock."
p: Nicolette G1I1:l:CJ
d: Julia Azrael
Hilton Anaheim; Victor Ramirez;
Does
9/6f2011 2:11 ev 73 11 DSF
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Mfralba Castro Rosas; Mimi
Santa Cruz; Adel Dagon;
Cbristopher Odman; Robert
pm per
,. ~
r .
i
v,
Macy's Inc.; Maey's West Stores
lnc.; Does
916h.0 II 2: 11 ev 7318 PSG
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Oganes Mesroplan
v.
Removal of complaint fOT violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practlces Act.
Bank of America NA; Chase
p: Jeffrey Coleman
d: Julia Strickland
8troOck Stroock &,
LavanLLP
Bank USA NA: Citib!ll1k NA: U~ _
Bank NA; Dues
9/6120112:11 cv 731 S JAK
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
7
Exhibit 4
Page 91
FER223
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Sandra Seher
v.
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:218
Page 9 of158
Rem'oval of'complaintfor violation ofthc Truth in
Lending Act, unfair debt collectlnn practices.
JP Morgan Chase NA; Matilla
Realty Inc.; NDEX West LLC;
Does
9/6/2011 2;11 cv 7314 SJO
(We~tem Division - Los Angeles)
Hicks Park LLP
Removal of complaint for failure to pay for legal services.
Page 10
p: proper
d: Mark Block
Wargo & French LLP
p: James Hicks
v.
Hicks Park LLP
INO Bank FSB, d.b,a. INO
Direct; Does
9/6120112: 11 cv 7330 ODW
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
d: Terrance Evans
Duane Morris LLP- San
Franclsce
Removal of complaint for wrongful foreclosure,
promissory estoppel.
p: Jeremy Alberts
d: Peter Sillman
Pite Duncan- San Diego
Ashley Vincenti; Anthony
Vincenti
v.
Exxon Mobil Corp.; Does
9/612011 2:] 1 cv 7336 VSP
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Removal' of~omplairit'{or personal injuries and damages
to-property due to'defendant's failure to properly control
and maintain the underground fuel storage tanks.
p: Jeffrey Young- Santa
Barbara
Richard Lee; Mary Lee
Removal of complaint for damages, asbestos litigation.
Janet Dominguez-Provencio
v.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corp.; Citimortgage Inc, a New
York corp.; Cal-Western
Reconveyance Corp.; Does
9/6120112:11 CY 7335 PA
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
d: Lawrence Riff
Steptoe
s: Johnson
LLP
p: Joseph Maher IT
v.
Weitz; & Luxenberg PC
Alfa Laval Inc.; C!i1portland Co.,
n.a. Calffornie Portland Cement
Co.; CBS Corp., f.k.a. Viacom
Inc.; Certain teed Corp.; ClarkReliance corp.; Crane Co.; CSR
Ltd., f.k.a. Colonial Sugar
Refining Co. Inc. of Syney
Australia; Foster Wheeler LLC;
Foster Whet:ler Energy Corp.;
General Electric Co.; GeorgiaPacific LLC, f.k.a. GeorgiaPacific Corp.; Hill Brothers
Chemioal Co.; Ingersoll-Rand
d: Geoffrey Davis
K & L Oates LLP
Co.; Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc.;
Kelly-Moore Paint Co. Inc.;
Owens-Illinois Inc.; 0-1 Inc.;
Rapid American Corp.; SocoWest Inc., f.k.lI. Brcnntag West
Inc., f.k.a, Soco-Lynch Corp.;
Syd Carpenter, Marine
Contractor Ine.; Union Carbide
Corp.; Yarway Corp.; Does
9/611011 2: 11 cv 7333 GHK
B
Exhibit 4
Page 92
FER224
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:219
Page 97 of 158
Page 10
(Western·Divjsion - Los Angeles)
Removal of complaint for violation of civil rights. (Case
111
other court: California Northern, 3: l1-cv-OI254.>
p: James Richard
Patterson
Harrison Patterson &
O'Connor LLP- San
Diego
d: Scott Jacobs
~
___~ __------------------~--~'·~~--+-----------------------~k~e~ed~S~lnlittltl~[------~
Deutsche Bank National Trust
Co.
Removal of complaint relating to real property.
.
Barrett Daffin et al
v.
Robert Pickar; Does
8131120112:11 cv 7219 R
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Sandra Queen Noble
p: James Lee
d: pro per
IFP: Other statutory actions.
pro per
Removal of complaint relating to labor litigation, (Case in
other court; California Northern, 3:0S-cv-Ol 184.)
p: Annette Gifford
Thomas & Solomon
LLP- New York
d: Steven Hazard
Y.
Stolen U.S.A.; US Department of
Health and Human Services;
Kathleen Sebelius; Tika Smith
813112011 2:11 cv 7228
(unassigned)
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
William Helm; Deborah Prise;
Heather Rady; Robert
Chernetsky; Rober Jones: Henry
Klein; Stacey Weinstein; Jeffrey
Sachs; Johnny Coleman; John
Keath; Chad Wickham; James
Crouch: Rickie Ham lIton; Sandy
Thomas; Roger Hugo; Robert
Shaw; Betty Knight; Larry
Hammock; Steven Tiller;
Strother Fulcher, Mary Holden;
Marlsia Fanner; Robert Acevez;
Frederick Aldrich; Merlin
Alexander; Elias Alvidrez;
Steven Arnold; James Baasch;
Robert Bowen; Michele
Gurnee
Gurnee & Daniels LLP·
Roseville
Breindel; Lawrence Camp;
Debbie Chatman; Corey Clary;
Diane Craig; Jeffrey Diggs;
Kathryn Dildy; Marc Dumont;
James Durden; Stephen Escobar;
John Ferguson: Darin Poran;
Robert ldernoto; Kenneth
Giacone; Elizabeth Orant; Linda
Hagerty; Douglas Hazen;
Bernard HilTel; William Hudson,
II1j Julius Johnson; Wilton King;
Eddie Kirkpatrick; Ronald
Langley; Frank Lewis, Charles
, Lowther; Sarah Malmij Steven
Exhibit 4
Page 93
FER225
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:220
Page 98 of 158 Page ID
Martz; Eugenia Matthews; Paul
Meizler; Harold Metcalf,
Michael NaperaIsky; Sean
Oberski; Richard Petersen:
Melissa Ray; Jack Reddick;
Dennis Robertson; Richard
Salhus; John Schabloski; David
Schnell; Warren Seit; William
Shuff; Myra Sloan; Monecia
Smith; Joel)' Splese; Mikal
Stampke; Francis Steinhoff;
Joseph Tafoya; Stephen
Takesian; Jeny Tawney; Tori
Taylor; Pbilip Tillman. Florinda
Trejo; Gayle Walker; James
Whaley; Oeorge White; David
Wyatt; Johnny Johnson
v.
Stephanie Riggs (petitioner);
Alderwoods Group Inc.; Paul
Houston; Service Corporation
International; SCI Funeral &
Cemetery Purchasing
Cooperative, Inc; SCI Eastern
Market Support Center, L,P.; SCI
Western Market Support Center,
L.P.; SCI Houston Market
Support Center, L.P.;
Alderwoods Group, LLC
8131/20 II 2: 11 cv 7200 SVW
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Brian Fulkerson
v.
Removal of complaint for wrongful termination of
employment, disability discrimination.
p: JohnwiUy Osuji
d: Antonio Ruiz
Weinberg Roger &
Rosenfeld- Alameda
Removal of complaint for rent lease and ejectment.
p: Katherine Watker
Stater Bros Markets Inc.; Service
Employees Jnternational Union
(SEIU) Local 1877; Doell
91612011 5: 11 cv 1407 YAP
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
US Bank NA
Alvarado and
Associates LLP
d: pro per
v.
Clarice Wright (movant); Here
Carlin; Divyu Singh; Vena
Rodriguez; Terry Mayberry;
Does
813112011 5:11 cv 1380 YAP
(Eastern Division - Riverside)
Upland Animal Hospital Inc;
Claus Heisted
v.
Diversified Veterinary
Management Corp.; Senex
Insurance Services Inc.; Hartford
Life and Annuity Insurance Co.,
Removal of complaint for intentional misrepresentation,
conspiracy to commit fraud. unsuitable investments. This
case arises out of It scheme among defendants whereby
they conspired to induce plaintiffs to establish and
implement a 412(i) defined benefit pension plan by falsely
representing the benefits of the plan and the returns of the
plan's Investments so that they would earn extraordinary
David McDowell
Morrison & Foerster
LLP
10
Exhibit 4
Page 94
FER226
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
a Connecticut corp.; Sims
Insurance S~ices Inc.; Eric
Sims; Does
91612011 8:11 cv 1343 DOC
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Heather McKinstry
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:221
Page 99 of158
-Page 10
large commissions and adminiSlrative fees, while
providing a losing investment proposition to plaintiffs and
the plan participants.
Removal of complaint relating to labor 1itigation,
v.
Accenture Inc, a Delaware corp.;
Does
912120118:11 ev 1335 DOO
(Southern Division - Santa Ana)
p: Briana Kim
Jose GlU'ay -APLC
d: Dennis Hyun
Seyfarth Sbaw
If you have any questions about subseriptions or need a re-send, pleilseeontact our horne office ~t(626) 577-6700.
11
Exhibit 4
Page 95
FER227
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Document 7
Filed 09/29/11
Page 100 of 158 Page
m
#:222
Exhibit 4
Page 96
FER228
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:223
Page 101 of 158 Page tD
Bill Girdner
CNS LA Fed {lafed@lcourthousenews.comJ
From:
Sent:
Monday, September 12, 20117:47 PM
To:
CNS Circulation
Subject:
eNS Los Angeles Federal R.eport Sep 12, 2011
8lackBeny Version - eNS Los Angeles Federal Report Sep 12, 2011 (706251 }.txt; CNS Los
Angeles Federal Report Sap 12, 2011 (706251}.rtf
Attachments;
Courthouse News Service
Filter lind Export Dinger!
Database Search
Los Angeles Federal Report
September
12, 20 II
The report below may not be transmitted Ihmugh lUIy means outsidll tho office loeatien th~t is subscribing, but may be copied freely
withIn That location. A separate subscription is required for each oruce locetlen that receives the report. 1f you need help finding
Imderlying documents. please QllI Of email ViolQt Enciso at lafcd@CQurthouSCT1ews.com or (213) 626-2425. The summaries below
describe allegations only and should not be tllktn as feet.
USDC Central Dilltrict orCaJifofllia
Western Division - Los Angeles, Eastern Division - Riverside, SoutberD Division - Santa Ana
Foremost Groups Inc., f.k.a,
Foremost lntematlonal Trading
Co. Inc.
v,
Ayers Bath (USA) Corp.
91121201J 2;11 ov 7473 GAF
(Western Division - Los Angeles)
Complaint for infringement on excluaive right of
distribution, unfair competition, infringement of
unregistered trademark, Defendant has infringed on
plaintiff's exclusive right to distribute Hulda's bethroom
lind sanitary porcelain products in the US and Canada by
importing Huida sanitary ware proeucts and making those
products available for sale to retail stores, wholesale
channels and regional dealers in the US.
Free download
William Hanssen
Drinker Biddle & Reath
Ph!lip Nisbet; Cory Nisbet
Complaint. fet..damages,.s office. reporters can review newly filed complaints in exactly the same
format as they are received in the clerk's office, prior to being docketed and before they are
available to the public on PACER. If a reporter n~eds a copy of a complaint, he requests the
copy from court staff at a rate of 50 cents per page.
Manha,ttan
At the New York County Supreme CODrt, where certain case types art: required to be e-filed,
new complaints are made available to reporters on the same day they are filed, whether they are
filed in paper or electronic form, E-filed cases are posted online to a court website by the end
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
Page 7
~62147 •• t
.I
Exhibit 6
Page 141
FER275
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:270
Page 1 8 of 158 Page 10
of the day they are filed. while new complaints filed in paper form are indexed and scanned
shortly after being filed, and made available electronically via an internal computer system on
terminals set up throughout the courthouse. At 4:00 p.m., and then at regular intervals until
5:00 p.m., the paper versions of the n.~~ compJ.{unts arc then placed by court officials in a
secure area behind the counter where reporters ~e free to review them on a same-day basis.
At the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, reporters are
permitted to view new civil complaints three times a day - between 9:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m.,
between II :30 a.m, and ]2: 15 p.m .• and between 3:35 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. - on the same day the
complaints are filed.
In Miami-Dade
County Circuit Court, the clerk's office closes to the general public at 4 p.m.,
but security personnel remain until 6:45 p.m., allowing Courthouse News Service's reporter to
review new filings. The reporter is permitted to go behind the intake counter and pull same day
complaints directly from each intake clerks' desk from 4:45 p.m, until the office closes at 6:45
p.m. The complaints that Courthouse News' reporter reviews have been assigned
case
number and checked for all required documentation and payment, but have not been entered
into the court's computer system. If the reporter needs copies she is able to make her own
copies at a Court copy machine for $1 per page.
a
At the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, electronic filing of new
civil complaints is mandatory, and Rew complaints that are filed before 5 p.m. appear on
PACER on the same day they are fired}. Cases-filed after 5 p.rn. appear on PACER the
following day,
.!"
~
Milwaukee
At the Milwaukee County Court in Wisconsin, reporters have access to new complaints on the
day they are filed, even iftbey have not yet been'fuJJy processed, and are permitted to go
behind the counter. Reporters can request copies of complaints from court personnel for a
small fee.
At the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, most nCW complaints
are e-filed and available electronically through PACER on the same day they are filed.
However, for those cases that are not immediately posted to PACER, court staff provides
reporters with the original paper versions of the new complaints, also on the same day they are
filed. Reporters are then able to make copies at a copy machine for a nominal fee.
Minneapolis/St.
Paul
At both the Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis and the Ramsey County District
Court in S1. Paul, where many of the .!:J.ew
complaints are filed by mail, Courthouse News'
reporter is permitted to go behind the':c0!'f1ter t'o~ro/jew stack of original complaints on the
the
same day they are filed and bef<;'IelHey.'fli-e dockefed, Because the reporter visits Ramsey
County only three times per week, she is unable to' review all cases on the same day they are
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
N!l2747 vI oaf
PageS
Exhibit 6
Page 142
FER276
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:271
Page 1 9 of 158 Page 10
filed, but is able to search for and view the cases she has missed on a computer terminal at the
courthouse the next time she visits the court. The reporter is able to make her own copies in
Hennepin County, where Courthouse News has established a copy account. In Ramsey
County, for cases the reporter reviews on the day of filing. the court staff will make copies of
any complaint the reporter requests. For cases she reviews after the day of filing, the reporter is
able to print a copy directly from the computer terminal.
At the United States District Court for District of Minnesota, reporters begin their visit by using
a computer terminal at the courthouse to view an intake log of new cases. From there, reporters
review complaints available on PACER using a public computer terminal in the clerk's office.
If a complaint shown on the intake log of new cases is not yet available on PACER, the court
will print out a copy for the reporter, The Clerk charges 10 cents per page for any copies that
reporters request.
' ..
:.
"'
::
f·
Nashville
At the Davidson County Chancery Court in Nashville, Courthouse News' reporter reviews an
intake log of the day's new filings on a public computer terminal at the courthouse. She then
compiles a fist of the relevant cases and presents the Jist to the court staff, who retrieve the
requested cases and allow her to review the complaints regardless of whether the docketing
process has been completed.
At the Davidson County Circuit Court, most new complaints are scanned throughout the day
and are made avail able through a government website on the same day they are filed.
At the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the clerk's staff are
required to stay one hour after closing in order to scan all new filings and post them onto
PACER on the day they are filed.
Oak1and
Although the Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, California, endeavors to make
newly-filed complaints available forviewing on its web site on a same-day basis, it has
implemented procedures to ensure that news reporters who visit the Rene C. Davidson
courthouse can obtain same-day
to those complaints that would otherwise not be posted
for electronic viewing on a same-day basis. Under those procedures. reporters are provided
with access to a workstation behind the intake counter. The station is equipped with a
computer connected to the Internet. Courthouse News' reporter first reviews the cases that are
made available online. For those cases that are not available online by the end of the work day
but are of media interest, court staffers scan and make those cases available on their web site.
access
Oklahoma City
At the Oklahoma County Court, intake clerks place all of the day's new petitions into a central
basket by 3: 15 p.rn. Petitions placed in the basket have been date stamped, but have Dot been
fully docketed - only indexed. A member of the clerk's staff then provides the petitions to
Courthouse News' reporter, and the reporter is instructed to sign the back of each petition to
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
~6J141
Page 9
vi •• r
Exhibit 6
Page 143
.. :.
FER277
.
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
: r,
.L;
'•• ~
Do·cument 7 .Flled 09/29/11
.
#:2i2
Page 150 of 158 Page ID
ensure that she has seen them all. After she has completed her review of the petitions in the
basket, Courthouse News' reporter is permitted to review any further petitions that have been
filed, indexed and placed in the basket after 3: 15 p.rn, The reporter may request copies of
petitions at a rate of $1.00 for the first page and 50 cents for all subsequent pages.
Omaha
At the Douglas County District Court, new complaints are filed in paper form and then added
to an internal computer database that is updated live: when a new case is received and indexed.
Courthouse News' reporter reviews the index information for relevant cases on a courthouse
computer terminal and a filing clerk retrieves the complaints he requests before they have been
fully processed or scanned, Courthouse News' reporter can review the new complaints on the
day of filing in the public area of the clerk's office and is free to make copies on public
machines.
Orhindo
At the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Courthouse News' reporter reviews hard copies of newly
filed complaints at a designated desk behind the counter. The staff places new complaints that
have not undergone any processing (i. e., docketed, jacketed or assigned a case number) near the
reporter's desk each day for same-day viewing. Since some complaints have been docketed by
the time Courthouse News' reporter arrives. these complaints are placed in a separate pile for
the reporter's review before they are moved to a separate desk for scanning by 4 p.m, In
addition, Courthouse News' reporter is permitted to review e-flled complaints and complaints
that have been docketed and scanned by the time the reporter arrives on a same-day basis using
one of the Clerk's terminals located behind the counter.
At the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando, where
electronic filing is mandatory, the court posts the majority of new civil filings to PACER on the
same day they are filed.
Palm Beach
In the Palm Beach County Circuit Court, members of the press review new civil cases at the
intake counter at 4 p.m. on the day they are filed. The new cases are given to the press as a
stack of folders.
..:
.:.
Pbotfnix
"
At the Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix. Arizona, court staff recently implemented
new procedures to ensure same-day access to civil complaints filed at its downtown location.
Under the new procedures, court staff scan and upload for electronic viewing all complaints
filed before 3 p.rn., which are then ma:de available on a designated press computer located in
the Customer Service Center for Courthouse News' reporter to review and, if necessary, print,
Complaints filed between 3 and 5 p.m, are immediately placed in a bin at a designated intake
window in the Central Court Building, where Courthouse News' reporter may review those
complaints between 4 and 5 p.m,
Media Access to Courts Around tho Nation
Page 10
1162747 vI sa!
Exhibit 6
Page 144
FER278
· Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:273
Page 151 of 158 Page ID
"Pittsburgh
At the Al1egheny County Court of Common Pleas in Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania, where the Court
has implemented an internally operated electronic filing system, nearly all of the day's new
filings are available on-line on a same-day basis. Complaints Dot posted to the court's website
on the day of filing are made available the following day.
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where electronic
filing is mandatory, Courthouse News' reporter has been provided with an "Me" case number
code for PACER that allows her to view the new filings before they are docketed.
Portland
At the Multnomah County Court in Portland, Courthouse News' reporter is given a stack of the
current-day's newly filed complaints, which she reviews at a cubicle behind the counter. The
reporter can make any needed copies herself using her own portable scanner.
At the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Courthouse News' reporter first
searches for newly filed complaints through the court's "electronic in-box," which is available
on a public access terminal at the courthouse" and contains those complaints that the clerks have
scanned but n01 yet processed and posted to PACER. She then searches for processed
complaints on PACER, which are also available-at a public access terminal at the courthouse.
Finally. the clerks give Courthouse News' reporter paper copies of those complaints that have
not yet been scanned and posted either to the electronic in-box or to PACER. The clerks will
also review the court's record book with Courthouse News' reporter at the end of the day to
make sure that no filings have been missed.
River~ide
At the Superior Court for the State of Cali fomi a, County of Riverside. new complaints are
scanned and made available for electronic viewing via the Court's web site and at computer
terminals in the courthouse. The press had been experiencing delays in access for years until a
new clerk, formerly from the United States District Court for the Central District of California,
came on board. The clerk found that same-day access could be achieved simply by shifting the
schedules of the personnel who scan complaints so that they begin and end work later in the
day, thus ensuring that new complaints would be made available for electronic viewing on a
same-day basis.
Sf. Louis
At the St. Louis City Circuit Court iii Missouri.~Qourthouse News' reporter goes to the intake
window where cases are filed and clerk's office st,aff members hand the reporter a stack of new
cases filed that same day. Courthouse News' reporter works at the counter next to the intake
window; however, members oftbe media can also work at a table near the window. Staff
members in the clerk's office will provide members of the media with copies of newsworthy
new cases free of charge.
Media
Access [0
1162'47,1 ..
r
Coutts Around the Nation
Page I J
Exhibit 6
Page 145
FER279
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 7 Filed 09129/11
#:27
At the United States District Court for
must be electronically filed, each case
and is immediately made available on
processed. Courthouse News' reporter
terminal in the clerk's office and print
Page 152 of 158 Page 10
the Eastern District of Missouri, where new complaints
is assigned a case number upon filing by the attorney
PACER, even if it has not been fully reviewed and
is able to view the new complaints on a computer
out copies for a small fee.
.. Sian F~nciseo
,
At the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, news reporters are allowed
behind the counter into the stacks to review unlimited numbers of new filings after providing a
driver's license and filling out a temporary name tag. The number of new filings per day
varies, but often exceeds 50. Courthouse News views new complaints regardless of whether
they have been fully processed. San Francisco Superior has established a written protocol for
members of the press. The key provisions are quoted below;
If media personnel want to review files already on the shelves, they can pull
these files themselves and return them to the shelves.
A]] new filings will be held in a Media Box during the day. Between 3:00 and
4:30 each day. this box will be available to the media for viewing in the Records
department, whether or not the cases have been entered in the computer. At
4:00 PM, when the office closes to the public, media personnel may ask to view
any additional filings that may have come in since 3 :00 PM. The Records
supervisor or an assigned clerk will retrieve those files for the media to view.
Any member of the media viewing new filings must return them to the box for
eventual return to the Records supervisor or assigned clerk.
,
Media personnel may come in·~ytime b~fore 3:00 PM to view new filings.
However, they will only be viewing cases newly filed up until that time.
Copy machine from the second floor Media Room will be moved to Room 103
and located behind the Records department. This machine belongs to
Courthouse News Service, but has been made available to all media personnel
for their Use.
At the San Francisco Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, reporters go behind the counter and review actions filed that same day, regardless of
whether the complaints have been fully docketed or posted on PACER. They are also
permitted access to the so-called ''transfer boxes" of new actions being sent to different
divisions of the court, and are provided with a copy of the intake log. Reporters are permitted
to make copies of cases they determine to be newsworthy using a portable scanner.
San Jose
At the Santa Clara County Superior Court in San Jose, California. the Court recently
implemented new procedures to ens~f.e that reporters receive same-day access to the Vast
,
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
1162141 .. 1 •• r
.
Page 12
Exhibit 6
Page 146
FER280
_ Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
F'Ied 09/29/11
1
Documen t 7
Page 153 of 158
Page 10
#:275
majority of each day's new civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints, Under those procedures,
civil unlimited complaints are made available to Courthouse News' reporter upon receipt of the
filing fee, the assignment of a case number. and the assignment of a first status conference date,
even though processing of the new complaint is far from over at this juncture. Complaints that
are filed over the counter by 3:30 p.m, are made available to Courthouse News' reporter on the
same day they are filed. All unlimited jurisdiction complaints that are in the drop box by 4:00
p.m. are also made available to Courthouse News on the same day they are filed. Unlimited
jurisdiction complaints that are filed over the counter between 3:30 p.m. and the clerk's office
closing at 4:00 p.m. have been designated as a staff priority, and the court endeavors to make
them available for review on the same day they are filed. Courthouse News' reporter is
permitted to remain at the Court until 4:30 p.m., one half-hour after closing, to review late-filed
cases. The court makes copies of complaints as requested by the reporter.
At the San Jose Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, clerks print out a list of all new complaints filed earlier that day. Reporters go
behind the counter, obtain complaints from individual clerks' desks, report on and scan any
newsworthy complaints. and then return the complaints to the clerks' desks.
At the King County Superior Court, Courthouse News' reporter is provided with a docket sheet
print-out of new cases two times per day - once at I 1 a.m. and again at 3 p.rn. The 1 I a.m, list
includes an cases that have been filed from 3 p.m~ on the previous day through l l a.m. on the
current day, while the 3 p.m. list includes new cases that have been filed from II a.m, to 3 p.rn.
that day. The reporter reviews each list to find relevant cases, then searches for and views new
complaints on a computer terminal at the courthouse. She is able to print out relevant
complaints for 15 cents per page.
Tampa
At the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, new complaints that are hand-filed in the main
courthouse are made available for: reView by reporters at the end of the day they are filed. Most
complaints are scanned by court staff ana made <,!vailableon the court's public access terminals
for review. Those complaintsthat
are not scanned and availableon the public access terminals
by 4 p.m. are provided in paper fonn for news reporters, who have until the court closes at 5
p.m. to review those late-filed complaints.
Media Access to Courts Around the Nation
Page 13
N61741 vi sa r
.....
Exhibit 6
Page 147
'J
FER281
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:27
Page 15 of 158 Page ID
EXHIBIT 7
FER282
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:277
. Superio,.
Page 155 of 158 Page 10
.
Co",., 0/ Ca/;fornia
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Hall of Justice
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Michael D. Planet
Executive OfficerlC/erk
and Jury Commissioner
July 11, 2011
Rachel Matteo-Boehm
Holme Roberts and Owen LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Media Access to New Complaints
Dear Ms. Matteo-Boehm:
I am writing in response to your June
complaints at the Ventura Superior Court.
20, 2011 letter regarding
media access
to new
As you have noted, the Court has met and spoken with you and representatives of Courthouse
News Service several times over-the past couple of years to both explain the Court's serious
resource shortages as a result of budget reductions, and steps that could reasonably be taken
to make new complaints available to the media. The budget recently SIgned by the Governor
imposes even more drastic reductions to the Courts, which makes it even more difficul~ to
provide same-day access to new filings.
While I appreciate the Courthouse News Services' interest in same-day access, the Court
cannot prioritize that access above other p'~ion~es and mandates.
Further, the Court must
ensure the integrity of all filings,- including new f[IJngs, andcannot make any filings available
until the requisite processing is completed.
We will continue to make every effort to make. new
filing$ available as early as is practicable given the demands on. limited court resources.
Sl~
Michael D. Planet
Executive Officer
MDP/vjb
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 6489, Ventura, California 93006-6489
Exhibit 7
Page 148
FER283
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:278
Page 15 of 158 Page ID
EXHIBIT 8
FER284
• Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
II
SAN FRANCISCO
-MAN· Document 7 ·iFiled 09/29/11
#:279
Ho1me Roberts & Owen ID
AUl:lmo/i at Law
August 2,20]
1
Michae1 Planet
Court Executive Officer
Ventura County Superior Court
800 South Victoria Ave.
Ventura, CA 93009
.,
Re:
Media Access to New Complaints
BOULDER
''':
COlOIWlO
Page 157 of 158 Page ID
c.
SPRINGS
Dear Mr. Planet:
DENVER
DUBLIN
LONOON
On behalf of Courthouse News Service, we write to briefly respond to your assertion, in
your July 11,.20] I letter, that budgetary difficulties prevent the Ventura County Superior
Court from providing the media with timely, same-day access to newly-filed civil
unlimited jurisdiction complaints.
Respectfully, our experience working with other courts shows that providing prompt media
access to new civil complaints - fundamentally, the simple act of letting reporters see the
new complaints that, because they are newly-filed. are already centrally located in the
intake area. - need not involve any extra expense or staff'time beyond the de minimis effort
of handing a stack of cornpl aints to a reporter (and even that de minimis effort can be
eliminated if a credentialed reporter is. simply allowed to go behind the counter to pick. up
the stack, as reporters do at the federal district court in San Francisco, for example).
Indeed, it has been our experience that providing prompt access is largely a matter of will
on the part of the court and its leaders.
LOS ANGELES
SALT I.J\KE CiTY
For example, at the San Francisco Superior CoUT! and Santa Clara County Superior Court,
new filings are placed In a m~.dia box.available to news reporters for viewing whether or
not those complaints have bi~ ful1y do~feted. In the past, in San Francisco, reporters
gathered the complaints from the intake window and put them in the box, actually saving
some work fOJ the court. Courthouse News has also observed that the de minimis staff
effort required to administer this type of"rcvicw box" is much less than the substantial
effort involved when staff are required to track down fully processed complaints for press
review, as is currently the case in Ventura County. State courts ill Alameda, Los Angeles
and Riverside also provide same day access to the press. AU four federal courts in
California provide the media with same-day access to new civiJ complaints without undue
expenditures of staff time or expense,
Rachel Matteo·Boahm 415.268.1996 rachel.matteo·boehm@hro.com
560 Mission Slreet, 25th Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2994 rei 415.268.2000 fax 415.26B.1999
N6476~ vl .. C
Exhibit 8
Page 149
FER285
Case 2: 11-cv-08083-R -MAN
Holme Roberts
Document 7 Filed 09/29/11
#:280
Page 158 of 158 Page ID
& Owen ill
AUomeys at Law
Michael Planet
August 2, 20ll
Page 2
At bottom, press access only results in increased costs where the court imposes the
requirement of complete processing before providing access. But newly filed complaints
become public records upon filing, and this status is not contingent on the court having
first completed processing. We must therefore respectfully but firmly disagree with your
assertion that providing timely access can only be accomplished at a monetary cost to the
Court.
Sincerely"
1~~~i
.
Rachel Matteo-Boehm
cc:
The Honorable Vincent O'Neill, Jr., Presiding Judge
Courthouse News Service
116416~ ~1 ru
Exhibit 8
Page 150
FER286
•• ... '1..& .... ...,,'
u,c,
... , ....
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
10
1
~.M..l.J
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN DocumC0PT'11
Page 1 of9 Page ID#:114
Rachel Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
rachel,matteoMboehm@hro,com
David Greene (SBN ] 60107)
dayjd.greene@hro.com
Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
Jeila.knox@hro.com
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone:
.;;
r
I
I
,
gF
"-
.~.
r
I
i
j
N
I.D
r~ •
e-
"- ..... -:-
-.
:.;:.;
r
(41S) 268~2000
J
Facsimile: (415) 268~1999
r,l)
!:d
.-
...
:tt~
~
~
-
.~
-
'.r]
"::J
.,
Ul
0'\
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE lffiWS SERVICE
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL D1STRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
lS
16
r'
Courthouse News ServicQt
Plaintiff,
]8
19
DECLARATION OF JVLIANNA
KROLAK IN SUPJ'ORT OF MOTION
v.
17
OF COURTHOUSE
NEWS SERVICE
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Michael Planet, in his official capacity as
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court.
Date:
Nov. 7,201]
Time:
10:00 am
Courtroom:
20
Defendant,
21
2211----23
24
CV 11- 08 0 a 3~~,~ ~)
__
CASBNO.~ __~~
~
Judge:
1, Julianna Krolak, decla~e and state: as follows:
I.
I am a reporter for Courthouse News Service ("Courthouse News"), the
25
26 plaintiff in the above-captioned action. I have personal knowledge of the following
facts and could testify to them ifcalled as a witness.
27
28
DECLARA TfON OF JULIANNA
KROLAK
,1!II19t.YII.QF
FER287
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R -MAN Document 6
1
2.
Filed 09/29111
Page 2 of 9 Page 10 #:11
I hold Bachelor of Arts degrees in Spanish and Italian from the
2
University of California at Santa Barbara, both of which I received in 1981. I
3
received a Master of Arts degree in Hispanic Civilization from the University of
4
California at Santa Barbara in 1984. I have worked as a writer and reporter since
5
2001.
6
3.
I am the primary Courthouse News reporter assigned to provide daily
7
coverage of new civil unlimited Jurisdiction complaints filed at the Ventura County
8
Superior Court. I do not cover limited jurisdiction civil complaints, nor do I cover
9
other case types such as criminal or small claims cases. I have been covering the
10
Ventura County Superior Court for Courthouse News since 2001. I am responsible
11
for preparing the Central Coast Report, which is emailed to subscribers each Monday
12
through Friday evenings and contains coverage of newsworthy new civil unlimited
13 jurisdiction complaints filed in the Monterey County, San Benito County. Santa
14
Barbara County, Santa Cruz County, San Luis Obispo County and Ventura County
15
superior courts. I prepare this report by reviewing, or attempting to review, all of the
16
potentially newsworthy new civil unlimited complaints filed since my last visit, and
17
preparing original summaries of the complaints I believe would be of interest to our
18
subscribers for inclusion in the report. These summaries are sometimes, but not
19
always, accompanied by copies of the actual complaints.
20
4.
When I first began covering the Ventura County Superior Court in 2001,
21
I visited the clerk's office once each week. At that time, both new limited and
22
unlimited jurisdiction cases were numbered sequentially, so the clerk's office staff
23
would provide me with all cases falling within a specified number range. In other
24
words, I would request all complaints filed to date beginning with the first complaint
25
that was assigned a case number following the last case that I had reviewed during the
26
previous week's visit. It was my understanding that other ease types, for example,
27
divorce, small claims and probate, were assigned case numbers under a separate
28
numbering system, so the range of ease numbers that I requested each week only
2
DECLARATION
1168198 vi saf
OF JULlANNA
KROLAK
'
.i"e
FER288
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 6
,j;
Filed 09/29/11
Page 3 of 9 Page 10 #:116
..
1
included limited and unlimited civil jurisdiction cases. Since these limited and
2
unlimited complaints were typically physically grouped together in sequential order,
3
rather than search for each complaint individually, the clerk's office staff simply
4
pulled all cases within a specific number range, put all of the limited and unlimited
5
complaints filed since my previous visit in a cart, and then provided the entire cart full
6
of cases to me for review. I would review all of the complaints, selecting and
7
reporting only on those unlimited jurisdiction complaints that were newsworthy,
8
before returning the cart of complaints to court staff. I also reviewed complaints that
9
were placed in the court's designated "media bin," which I understood to contain
10
filings that the clerk's office considered to be of likely press interest. Under these
r
,':.
..
11
procedures, I generally was able to review the large majority of the new civil
12
unlimited jurisdiction complaints that had been filed since the previous week's visit.
13
5.
Beginning in early 2008, media access at Ventura County Superior began
14
to deteriorate on a number of fronts. First, the clerk's office limited the number of
15
files I could review per visit to 200, even though the cases I was requesting were
16
sequentially numbered and grouped together and could be retrieved from a single
17
location. In many instances, I was not provided with many of the sequentially
18
numbered cases I had requested, which meant I bad to stand in a new line to request
19
the missing cases, I was also not permitted to review both the cases I had requested
20
and the media bin cases at the same time, which made it necessary to stand in another
21
line to obtain the media bin cases: Because the Jines can often be long, these
22
procedures made it significantly more difficult to conduct my news reporting
23
activities. It is my understanding that my editor and Courthouse News' Northern
24
California Bureau Chief, Christopher Marshall, attempted to work with various
25
officials in the clerk's office to resolve these access difficulties on my behalf.
26
However, those efforts did not result in any lasting improvements, and my difficulties
27
in reporting on new civil unlimited complaints continued.
28
3
DECLARATION
OF JULIANNA
KROLAK
#68198 v I s.f
FER289
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
6.
1
-MAN
Document 6
Filed 09/29/11
Page 4 of 9 Page 10 #:11
Then, in March 2009, the court instituted a new rule that limited the
2
number of files that reporterswerepermitted to review each day to twenty-five.
3
Around this time, I learned that the court had begun using a new electronic docketing
4
system, which I now understand to be part of the California Case Management
5
System, often referred to as "CCMS." Therefore, instead of simply looking at all the
6
complaints filed since my prior visit, I determined that I would need to request to see
7
specific complaints in order to report on the most newsworthy new filings. Thus, I
8
began my news reporting by viewing online docket information, from which I did my
9
best to determine which twenty-five recently filed complaints would be most
10
newsworthy. I would then fill out a separate request form for each complaint I wished
11 to see, but was limited to requesting only five complaints at a time, which I submitted
12 to the clerk's staff after waiting in line in the Records Department. No matter how
13
many of the five requested complaints we~e available for review, I was required to
14 wait in 1ineagain, usually for thirty'mihute~, and som~times for an hour or more, to
15 request the next batch of five cases. In other words, even if none of the five requested
16
complaints were available, I was not permitted to submit another five requests while
17
still standing at the counter, but rather, was required to return to the end of the line and
18 request the next five complaints. Also, even if a case was not made available for
19 review - typically because either it had not yet been processed, or it had been sent to
20
the assigned judge's chambers - it still counted toward the twenty-five-file limit.
21
Since there were often more than fifty potentially newsworthy civil unlimited cases
22
filed in any given week, I could no longer monitor all of the newsworthy new
23
complaints by simply visiting the clerk's office once a week. Additionally, many of
24
the complaints I requested were not available for review for days or even weeks after
25
they were filed.
26
27
28
4
DECLARATION
#68198 vl
OF JULIANNA
KROLAK
,or
FER290
ase2:11-cv-06063-R
1
7.
-MAN Document6
Filed 09/29/11
Page
of9
PageID#:116
Following the implementation of these new access procedures, I
2
informed Mr. Marshall of the difficulties and delays that resulted from these
3
procedures. Mr. Marshall told me that he would discuss the issue with Courthouse
4
News' Editor Bill Girdner, as well as Courthouse News' counsel. About a month
5
later, Courthouse News, through its, counse~, sent a letter to Court Executive Officer
6
Michael Planet regarding the problems related to access.
7
8.
In June 2009, Mr. Marshall informed me that, following discussions with
8
court officials regarding the delays, the court had implemented a new procedure that it
9
believed would provide me and other members of the media with more timely access
IOta
newly filed civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints. My understanding of these
11
procedures was that the court would place all newly filed civil unlimited jurisdiction
12
complaints directly into the media bin, and I would be permitted to access all
13
complaints located in that bin, as well as up to twenty-five additional complaints, per
14
visit, from the shelves.
15
9.
Around this same time, I began visiting the clerk's office twice each
16
week. The new procedures, together with my twice-a-week visits, initially worked
17
reasonably well to provide mewith.access to most civil unlimited jurisdiction
18
complaints that had been filed since my previous visit to the court. However, within
19
months after the new procedures were put in place, this access deteriorated. It
20
appeared to me that newly filed complaints were being fully processed before they
21
were placed in the bin, and in many instances, were completely bypassing the bin and
22
being placed on the shelves, also after they had been fully processed. I therefore had
23
to request the complaints directly from the shelves, which counted against the twenty-
24
five-file-per-day limit that I was permitted. Some of the files that I requested directly
25
from the shelves were not available for review either. because, as I was told by court
26
staffers, they had not yet been processed, Therefore, on each visit, I had a backlog of
27
complaints that I was waiting to see. Additionally. even if a requested complaint was
28
not available for review, it counted against the twenty-five-file quota. As before, I
r
DECLARAnON OF mLiANNA KROLAK
1i{i819Bvl
sar
FER291
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Document 6
"Filed 09129111 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:119
I
was only permitted to request five complaints at a time, and had to stand in a new and
2
lengthy line for each group of five complaints that I wished to review. The
3
unavailability of complaints in the media bin or from the shelves again led to delays in
4
access, ranging for the most part from one to three calendar days, but sometimes
5
significantly longer.
6
10.
In November 2010, at the instruction of Mr, Marshall, I began visiting
7
the clerk's office on a daily basis. Since that time, the procedures I use to obtain
8
access to new complaints have r:;¥lained essentially the same, and the delays have
9
significantly worsened, Based art what I have observed, it appears that, on average,
10
about fifteen new unlimited complaints are filed each day. However, of those,
11
approximately two-thirds, or around ten complaints, appear to be potentially
12
newsworthy based on the online docket information. Many complaints are never
13
placed in the media bin, so I continue to request individual complaints directly from
14
the shelves, which are placed on the shelves only after they have been fully processed.
15
I continue to use the online docketing system to identify potentially newsworthy
16
complaints so that I can request to see them. Information about new complaints is
17
normally delayed by at least one court day, but some complaints are not entered into
18
the online docketing system for up to a month, so I must continually check the docket
19
as far back as thirty calendar days to make sure that I am not missing any complaints
20
that were not entered into the docketing system at the time they were filed. Even one
21
court day after filing, the vast majority-of complaints are not available for review.
22
And when these delays occur around a weekend and/or a holiday, a delay of even one
23
court day means actual delays of three or even four days.
24
11.
Since November 2010, as I have done before, I have kept Mr. Marshall
25
apprised of the delay problems at the court. He instructed that I shouldnot attempt to
26
resolve the delays with court staff, but rather should focus on my reporting activities,
27
and that Courthouse News' editors and its counsel would attempt to work with
28
officials from the clerk's office to resolve the delays. As such, I understand that from
6
DECLARATION
OF JULIANNA
KROLAK
#68198 vi saf
FER292
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN Document 6
Filed 09/29/11
Page
of 9 Page ID #:120
1
February 2011 until the present time, both Mr. Marshall and Courthouse News'
2
counsel have made several attempts-to . reso.!vethe access delays. Mr. Marshall
3
informed me that he wrote to Deputy Executive Officer Cheryl Kanatzar in February
4
2011, and spoke with Ms. Kanatzar following this correspondence regarding potential
5
solutions to the access delays. In March 2011,:Mr. Marshall told me that Ms.
6
Kanatzar informed him that the clerk's office would reprioritize how cases are
7
processed, and that I should begin seeing complaints within two days of filing. Over
8
the next few months, I monitored the availability of new unlimited jurisdiction civil
9
complaints to determine whether the court's new procedures would have any effect in
10
tenus of delays in access. Rather than seeing any improvement in access, the delays
11
got worse, with same-day access a rare occurrence, and typical delays between one
12
day and several weeks after filing.
13
12.
Per Mr. Marshall's instruction, I have continued tracking delays in
14
access. I have monitored the delaYii"m·accdssrelated to complaints that are made
15
available in the media bin, as well as delays to those complaints that I request directly
16
from the shelves, over a four-week period from August 8 to September 2, 2011. For
17
each complaint that I reviewed during this time period, I noted the case number
18
assigned to the complaint, the date the complaint was filed and the date the complaint
19
was made available for my review, and then calculated the delays in access for all
20
cases reviewed, as well as those that I reported in the Central Coast Report. For at
21
least two ofthe complaints that I reviewed, I noticed that the file-stamped date on the
22
physical complaint was different than the "filed date" on the court's online docket; in
23
these instances, the file-stamped date was at least one court day earlier than the online
24
"filed date." The reason for this discrepancy is unclear. Therefore, I used the online
25
"filed date" - i.e., the later date ~'In calculating the delays during this four-week time
,.
...
period.
26
27
28
7
DECLARA TJON OF JULIANNA
KROLAK
N68J9B vl saf
FER293
Case 2:11-cv-08083-R
1
13.
-MAN
Document 6
Filed 09/29/11
Page 8 of9
Page 10 #:121
Of the 152 new unlimited civil complaints that I reviewed during this
2
four-week period, only 6%, or nine complaints,
3
The delays were as follows:
were available on a same-day basis.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
,
COMPLAINTS REVIEWED
Delays Reported in Calendar 1)ay~
Case availability
Nom ber of cases
Same-day
9
",
Next-day
2-6 days
7-14 days
15-34 days
21
94
23
5
COMPLAINTS REVIEWED
Delays Re~orted in Court Days
Case availability
Number of cases
Same-day
Next-day
2-6 days
7-14 days
15-24 days
3
.. J;
6%
14%
62%
15%
3%
Percentage
6%
18%
66%
8%
2%
9
28
100
12
17
Percentage
~.
~
,
.
.
.'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
'.
,
'
8
DECLARATION
1168198
OF JULlANNA
KROLAK
vi saf
FER294
«
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ase 2:11-cv-08083-R
-MAN
Filed 09/29111
Document 6
COMPLA~TSREPORTED
Delays Reported in Calendar
Case availability
Same-day
Next-day
2-6 days
7-14 days
15-34 days
Days
Number of cases
4
14
60
17
5
COMFLAINTSREPORTED
Delays Reported in Court Days
Case availability
Number of cases
Same-day
4
Next-day
18
2-6 days
66
7-14 days
9
15-24 day_s
3
Page 90f9
Page ID #:122
Perceatage
4%
14%
60%
17%
5%
Percentage
4%
18%
66%
9%
3%
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
IJ~
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
, California on this
df.i!aay of September 201 I.
17
18
19
~~
Julianna Krolak
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
26
27
28
9
DECLARAnON OF JULIANNA KROLAK
~6gl98 vi saf
FER295
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On September 12, 2012, I caused a copy to be served of the within
document:
APPELLANT COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE'S
FURTHER EXCERPTS OF RECORD
by placing the document listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid, in the United States, and mailed to the address as set forth below:
Robert A. Naeve, Esq.
maeve@jonesday.com
Erica L. Reilley, Esq.
elreilley@jonesday.com
Nathaniel P. Garrett
ngarrett@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Attorneys for DefendantslRespondents
I certify that I am a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the
service was made. Executed this 1ih day of September, 2012, at San Francisco,
California.
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?