Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 40

Filed (ECF) Appellant Courthouse News Service citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 04/24/2013. [8603693] (REM)

Download PDF
BOy ,A n I Rachel Matteo-Boehm ~I r_ LlLr Direct: 415-268-1996 I~ rachel.matteo-boehm@bryancave.com U 1\ V L / April 24, 2013 Bryan Cave LLP 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor VIA CM ECF FILING San Francisco. CA 94105-2994 Tel (415) 266-2000 Fax (415) 266-1999 Molly Dwyer, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, CA 94119-3939 www.bryancave.com Bryan Cave Offices Atlanta Courthouse News Servicev. Michael Planet, Case No. 11-57187 Boulder Oral Argument Re: Charlotte Scheduled for May 8, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in Pasadena Chicago Colorado Dear Ms. Dwyer: Pursuant to FRAP 28G), Appellant Courthouse with the following: Springs Dallas News Service supplements its briefs Denver Frankfurt Hamburg Hong Kong Rivas v. Napolitano, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6663, *9-10 (9th Cir. 2013) (reversing Irvine dismissal under FRCP 12(b)(1) as "not appropriate" because the jurisdictional question overlapped the merits). It supplements page 7, footnote 4 of the Reply (citing Safe Airfor Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2004». Jefferson NAGE v. Mu//igan, 849 F. Supp. 2d 167, 175 (D. Mass. 2012) (following "developing consensus among federal courts that Burford abstention is unwarranted where, as here, plaintiffs bring First Amendment challenges to state laws or actions") (citing Ripplingerv. Collins, 868 F.2d 1043 (9th Cir. 1989»; Crisante v. Coats, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53646, *28 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17,2012) (denying Pu//man abstention in case involving "nettlesome issue of state law" because '''[a]bstention is to be invoked particularly sparingly in actions involving alleged deprivations of First Amendment rights"'). London Los Angeles New York Paris Phoenix San Francisco Shanghai Singapore St. Louis Washington. insufficient to characterize a publication as commercial" and reduce its First Amendment protection). It supplements page 13, footnote 7 of the Reply. SFOlDOCS\135563.1 AND Consulting CUSTDMS CDNSULTANCY www.bryancaveconsulting.com Bangkok Jakarta Kuala Lumpur Manila Shanghai Singapore Tokyo Dex Media West v. Seattle, 696 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2012) ("economic motive ... is DC Bryan Cave International A TRADE Neither decision discussed nor required a chilling effect before rejecting abstention. They supplement the Opening Brief at 6, 19-27,47-48,54, the Reply at 9-13, and the citation at pages 52 and 57 of Appellee's Answering Brief to McKusick v. Ciry of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478 (11th Cir. 1996), which recognized O'Shea "abstention for comity and federalism reasons is inappropriate" where state action is "attacked on First Amendment grounds and is facially overbroad." Id. at 489 n.6. City Kansas City Bryan Cave llP Molly Dwyer, Clerk April 24, 2013 Page 2 Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168073, *52 (ED.N.Y. Nov. 26,2012) (allowing media to intervene to challenge protective order because otherwise "'the public's right of access ... would go untested'" and "'the first amendment protects not only the content of speech but also its timeliness"'). This decision, recognizing the right of timely access, supplements the Opening Brief at 4-5,24-25 & n.7, 48-54 and Reply at 10-13 & n.5. Please bring these supplemental Very truly yours, r;:;)~ Rachel Matteo-Boehm SFOlDOCS\135563.! citations to the panel's attention. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 24, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CMIECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF lsi Rachel Matteo-Boehm HROSAF\79749.1 system. users and that service will be

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?