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)
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?