Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 50

Filed (ECF) Appellant Courthouse News Service citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/12/2013. [8701984] (REM)

Oy
B 11

A ~I r JJ I r
, ,I~ L 1\ V l

Rachel Matteo-Boehm
Direct: 415-268-1996
[e-mail]

July 12, 2013

Bryan Cave LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor

FILED VIA

ECF

San Francisco,

CA 94105·2994

Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

Molly Dwyer
Clerk of the Court
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit
The James R. Browning Courthouse
95 7th Street

www.bryancave.com

San Francisco, CA 94103

Charlotte

Bryan Cave Offices
Atlanta
Boulder
Chicago

Courthouse News Seroice v. Planet

Colorado Springs

U.S. Court of Appeals Docket No. 11-57187

Re:

Dallas
Denver

Dear Ms. Dwyer:

Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hong Kong

We represent Appellant Courthouse News Service in this case, argued on May 8,
2013, and write in response to Appellee Michael Planet's July 8, 2013 update of his
October 31, 2012 letter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 280).

Irvine
Jefferson

City

Kansas City
London

As was true of Appellee's original Rule 280) letter, the subject of his update amendments to California's e-filing Rules of Court - does not bear on this case,
which alleges systemic violations of the First Amendment right of access to civil
complaints filed in paper form. As stated at the June 28 Judicial Council meeting,
California courts that offer e-filing "at this time are few." Ventura Superior is not
among them.

Los Angeles
New York
Paris
Phoenix
San Francisco
Shanghai
Singapore
SI. Louis

Even if Ventura eventually adopted e-filing, it would not change the federal
constitutional question of whether the First Amendment allows denying access for
days or weeks while administrators process complaints. At Orange County Superior,
the site of California's e-filing pilot project, substantial delays in access to newly efiled complaints are routine and result from that court's practice of not allowing
access until after processing - the same policy contested on First Amendment
grounds in this case. See Electronic Filing and Service, Attachment D at 5-6 nn.4-5; accord
FER 10-13. In contrast, many California courts provide access to paper-filed
complaints on the day they are filed. ER 63-64, 76-92, FER 8-13, 79-80, 134-35.

Washington,
Bryan Cave
International

DC

Consulting

A TRADE AND CUSTOMS CONSULTANCY

www.bryancaveconsulting.com
Bangkok
Jakarta
Kuala Lumpur
Manila
Shanghai
Singapore
Tokyo

Bryan Cave LLP

July 12, 2013
Page 2
On their face, the rule amendments do not even address access to e-filings. And the Judicial Council's
report did not "grapple" with access except to respond to comments from press and open
government organizations concerned about access delays. That response did not assert that any of the
rule amendments altered access to e-filings, but instead cited the same state law Appellee has cited in
this case, to justify delays. Electronic Filing and Service 33-36, 117-19 & Attachment D (comments from,
inter alia, the Los Angeles Times, Bay Area News Group, and the California Newspaper Publishers
Association). The report thus further illustrates that the state law Appellee cites will not moot or
modify the federal constitutional question at issue here, or otherwise render abstention appropriate in
this First Amendment case.
.

a~cc

Very truly yours,

Rachel Matteo-Boehm
cc:

Robert Naeve, Esq.