Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 75

Objection in opposition to re: MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint #61 Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice filed by Plaintiff Courthouse News Service. (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:",
Ool
Ool
-'N

"-,

.o
Io

D..I-~
...J"''''
...JNOl
UJ 1--

«

~~u
00:
1-0

Z(I)U
'"
>-z- m

o:ou
m-z

m -c
mo:

~"-

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]
14

Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

oZ

co'"

",(I)

16

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

17
18

19 Courthouse News Service,

Case No. CVII-08083 R (MANx)

20

PLAINTIFF COURTHOUSE NEWS
SERVICE'S OBJECTIONS AND
REQUEST TO STRIKE
IMPROPER ARGUMENT IN
DEFENDANT MICHAEL
PLANET'S REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff,

21

vs.

22 Michael Planet, in his official capacity as
23 Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court,
24
Defendant.
25

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

26
27
28
1

211371.1

PLAINTIFF'S

OBJECTIONS

TO DEFENDANT'S RJN
Case No. CVII-08083

R (MANx)

1

Plaintiff Courthouse News Service ("Courthouse News") hereby submits

2 these objections to and request to strike improper argument in the Request for
3 Judicial Notice ("RJN") (ECF #72) filed by Defendant Michael Planet
4 ("Defendant") in support of his Motion to Dismiss. Courthouse News does not
5 object to Defendant's request that this Court take judicial notice of the state statutes
6 and other authorities attached as Exhibits to his request. Rather, Courthouse News
7 objects to the portions of the RJN in which Defendant presents improper legal
8 argument regarding such statutes and other authorities. Namely, Courthouse News
9 objects to the following portions of the RJN as improper for and irrelevant to a
10 request for judicial notice: Page 2, lines 6-11, and the entire column labeled as
11 "Summary of Provisions" for Exhibits 1 through 44 on pages 2-13. While reference

"''<t

Om
Om

""N

u..,

in

IO

o..l-~

12 to and direct quotations from the authorities for which Defendant requests judicial

-I"''<t
-INa>
1-- «
~~u

w

0",
I-

Zenu
~z~
"'ou
ro-Z

13 notice may be appropriate, Defendant's "Summary of Provisions" goes well-beyond

-

0

VI«
VI",

iu..

14 this, and is improperly argumentative.
15

In the objected-to portions of the RJN, Defendant is not merely asking the

oZ

w«
",en

16 Court to take judicial notice of the statutes and other authorities he relies on, but is
17 also seeking to have the Court take judicial notice of Defendant's arguments as to
18 how these statutes and other authorities should be interpreted - arguments that
19 Courthouse News disputes. Such arguments belong in Defendant's reply
20 memorandum of points and authorities, not in his Request for Judicial Notice. See
21

Ortega v. JB. Hunt Transport, Inc" 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, *8-9 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2,

22

2013) (granting a request for judicial notice as to a recent court opinion, but denying

23 judicial notice of the arguments regarding the decision and striking the arguments
24

from the request for judicial notice) (overruled on other grounds); Barsch v.

25

0 'Toole, 2007 U. S. Dist. LEXIS *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) (striking portion of

26

RJN that contained "improper argument"); accord, e.g., Federal Rule of Evidence

27

201(b) ("The court may judicially notice a/act that is not subject to reasonable

28

dispute.") (emphasis added).
2

211371.1

PLAINTIFF'S

OBJECTIONS

TO DEFENDANT'S RJN
Case No, CVII-08083

R (MANx)

1
2

The problem, of course, is that Defendant could not have fit all of this
argument into his reply memorandum because it is already 25 pages long, the

3 maximum number of pages allowed for a memorandum of points and authorities.
4 Central District Local Rule 11-6. The argument on Page 2, lines 6-11 of
5 Defendant's RJN, and the entire column labeled as "Summary of Provisions" for
6 Exhibits 1 through 44, is thus also objectionable and must be stricken for the
7 additional ground that it constitutes argument in excess of the page limit set forth at
8 L.R.II-6.
9
10
1<"
00>
00>

Dated: August 8, 2014

11

BRYAN CAVE LLP
lsi Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm
Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

By:

--'N

u.,
io

Io
o..l-~

12

--''''''
--,No>
W

1--

-c

~~u
01<
.
1-0
ZUl o

'"

>-z- "'

13
14

I< 0"
ro-Z

"''''

"'I<

iu.

15

oZ

<D'"

",Ul

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

211371.1

PLAINTIFF'S

OBJECTIONS

TO DEFENDANT'S RJN
Case No. CVII-08083

R (MANx)