Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 74

SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint #61 Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice filed by Plaintiff Courthouse News Service. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-2 Part 1 of 2, #2 Exhibit 1-2 Part 2 of 2)(Matteo-Boehm, Rachel)

1 Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
2 [e-mail]
Roger R. Myers (SBN 146164)
3 [e-mail]
4 Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
[e-mail]
5 BRYAN CAVE LLP
6 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
7 Telephone: [phone]
8 Facsimile: [phone]

0:"
00>
00>
...J",

u...

Ia

,,-I-~

'"

--''''''

--''''0>

«
:;~()

UJ ...:

00:

9 Jonathan G. Fetterly (SBN 228612)
10 [e-mail]
BRYAN CAVE LLP
11 120 Broadway, Suite 300
12 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: [phone]
13 Facsimile: [phone]

-

1-0

z"'o
«
00
>-z0:00
[J)-Z
00«
000:

~u..

14

Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

aZ

",'"
",'"

16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24

Case No. CVII-08083

Courthouse News Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
PLAINTIFF COURTHOUSE NEWS
SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
DISMISS OF DEFENDANT
MICHAEL PLANET

vs.
Michael Planet, in his official capacity as
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court,
Defendant.

25

R (MANx)

Date: August 18,2014
Time: 10 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Manuel L. Real

26
27
28
210762.1

1

SUPP. REQ. FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPP. TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Case No. CVII-08083

R (MANx)

In accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Plaintiff Courthouse News

1
2

Service hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following facts,

3 documents and authorities in support of its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss of
4 Defendant Michael Planet:
1.

5

Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 2 of the California Rules of Court (Rules

6 2.250-2.261), pertaining to e-filing. These rules include Rule 2.250(b)(7), cited for
7 the first time by Defendant in his Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's
8 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF # 70), and Rules 2.253(b)(7),
9 2.254( c), and 2.259( c), cited by Defendant in paragraph 4 of his Updated Proposed
10 Order (ECF # 73), in support of his argument that "new complaints are 'filed' only
11 after they have been processed, reviewed and entered into the court's records."

0:"
0",
0",
--'''I
U. ,

'"

1:0

D..I-~

12 Reply, p. 6. A true and correct copy of these Rules of Court are attached as Exhibit

-''''''
-,"I",
UJ 1--

«

~~o
00:

13

1.

-

°

I- o
«
>-z- '"
0:
",-z o
'" -c
sn 0:
ZU)

°

~u.
o z
<0«
",U)

2.

14

Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts,

15 Report to the Judicial Council for business meeting on June 28, 2013, regarding
16 Electronic Filing and Service (report date June 21, 2013), available on the web site
17 of the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of Courts, at
18 http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20130628-itemC.pdf

(the "Report"). A

19 true and correct copy of the Report, which provides the history leading to the
20

Judicial Council's adoption of Rule 2.250(b )(7), 2.253(b )(7), 2.254( c), 2.259( c), and

21

related e-filing Rules of Court in Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 2 of the California

22

Rules of Court, is attached as Exhibit 2. Judicial notice is requested for the entire

23

document as well as the following specific portions contained therein:
a.

24

Comments of the California Newspaper Publishers

25 Association, the First Amendment Coalition, Californians Aware, Courthouse News
26

Service, Bay Area News Group, The Press Democrat Media Company, and Los

27

Angeles Times Communications LLC (collectively referred to in the Report as the

28

"Press Group") addressing the rules cited by Defendant (Exhibit 2, pages 370-482).
210762.1

2

SUPP. REQ. FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPP. TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Case No. CVII-08083

R (MANx)

1

b.

The Judicial Council's response to the Press Group

2 comments, found at pages 64-66 of Exhibit 2'.
3
4

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (b) allows this Court to take judicial notice of
any fact "not subject to reasonable dispute because it" is either (1) "generally known

5 within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction" or (2) "can be accurately and readily
6 determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
7

The Court may take judicial notice of the Rules of Court attached as Exhibit 1

8 because "[c]ourts routinely take judicial notice of state or federal statutes and
9 regulations." Martinez v. Welk Group) Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2564, *7-8
10 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 11,2011); Wilson v. Tilton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139729, *5 n.3
0: ....

Om
Om
-'N
on
Ia
CLI-~

lL.

11 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24,2011).
12

In addition, "Judicial notice may be taken of documents available on

-,on ....
-,Nm
I1J

1-- or:{

~~u
()

0:

13 government websites," Jarvis v. JP Morgan Chase Bank) NA., 2010 U.S. Dist.

•

1-0

Zen o
UJ
>-zo:ou
ro-Z
UJ -c
..

UJ 0:

:ilL

14 LEXIS 84958, *3 (C.D. Cal. July 23,2010), and the Court may thus take judicial
15 notice of the report attached as Exhibit 2 and available on the web site of the

aZ

"'..:
",en

16 Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts at
17 http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20130628-itemC.pdf.This

is because such

18 documents, and the information contained therein, are "capable of accurate and
19 ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
20

questioned." Marley v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122171, *5

21

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)) (internal quotations

22

omitted). "Courts regularly take judicial notice of government agency websites and

23

the information contained on them, treating official policies and records posted on

24 the websites as public records." Daghlian v. Devry Univ., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist.
25

LEXIS 97797, *9-11 n.9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2007); see also Global Acquisitions

26 Networkv. Banko! Am. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22351, *10 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
27

19, 2013) ("This information, from two different government websites, 'can be

28

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
210762.1

3

SUPP. REQ. FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPP. TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Case No. CVII-08083

R (MANx)

1 be questioned' and therefore 'is not subject to reasonable dispute. "'); Sturm v.
2 Davlyn Investments, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188027, *5 n.5 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
3 30,2013) (taking judicial notice of fact taken from public record on government
4 website).
5

Judicial notice of the report attached as Exhibit 2 is also appropriate because

6 the Court may take judicial notice of the contents of administrative bodies' records.
7 Jimenez v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 238 F.R.D. 241, 246 (C.D. Cal. 2006) ("The
8 content of records and reports of administrative bodies are proper subjects for
9 judicial notice").
10
0::",

Om
Om
-'N ,

u,

<0
:1:0

[L"'~

11

Dated: August 8, 2014

BRYANCAVELLP
By:

12

--J<O'"
--JNm

w ...
-~

~~o
U

0:: ,..0
0

z'"
'"
>-z-<J)

13
14

/s/ Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm
Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

0::00
lll-Z
<J)
<J)

'"
0::

~u.

15

oZ

co'"
<0'"

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
210762.1

4

SUPP. REQ. FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPP, TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Case No. CVII-08083

R (MANx)