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)

Download PDF
Oy B 11 A ~I r JJ I r , ,I~ L 1\ V l Rachel Matteo-Boehm Direct: 415-268-1996 July 12, 2013 Bryan Cave LLP 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor FILED VIA ECF San Francisco, CA 94105ยท2994 Tel (415) 268-2000 Fax (415) 268-1999 Molly Dwyer Clerk of the Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit The James R. Browning Courthouse 95 7th Street 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 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.

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?