United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 184

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/15/2018 re: Requests for Judicial Notice. The court takes JUDICIAL NOTICE on Plaintiff's exhibits 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. The court takes JUDICIAL NOTICE on Defendants' exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K. The court DECLINES to take judicial notice on Plaintiff's exhibits 1, 4, 5 and 7 and Defendants' exhibit L. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12
13
14
15

No.

2:18-cv-490-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

ORDER RE REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE

Defendants.

16
17

In support of and opposition to Plaintiff’s pending Motion

18

for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, and Defendants’ Motion to

19

Dismiss, ECF No. 77, the parties each submitted a Request for

20

Judicial Notice, ECF Nos. 78 & 173.

21

judicial notice of any of the exhibits.

22

the Court’s decision on each exhibit for which judicial notice

23

has been requested.

Neither party has opposed
This Order sets forth

24
25
26

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court may

27

judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable

28

dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial
1

1

court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and

2

readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably

3

be questioned.

4

notice of adjudicative, rather than legislative, facts.

5

Fed. R. Evid. 201.

The rule governs judicial

Even when a court takes judicial notice of a party’s

6

exhibits—such as legislative history and government documents—the

7

findings and statements within those documents frequently contain

8

facts that may be disputed and conclusions that involve

9

interpretation, opinion, and judgment.

See In re Easysaver

10

Rewards Litigation, 737 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1171 (S.D. Cal. 2010).

11

The Court may not take judicial notice of disputed facts stated

12

in public records.

13

(9th Cir. 2001).

14

to be proper subjects of judicial notice, therefore, will be

15

constrained by this rule.

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690
The Court’s reliance on any exhibits it deems

16
17

II.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

18

A.

News Articles and Press Release

19

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of various news articles,

20

Pl. RFJN, Exhs. 1, 5, & 7, and a Press Release from

21

Assemblymember Chiu, id., Exh. 4.

22

and press release are not facts that can be accurately and

23

readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably

24

be questioned.

25

publications to “indicate what was in the public realm at the

26

time,” it cannot take notice of their contents as being true.

27

See Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011,

28

1029 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

The contents of the articles

While the Court might take notice of such

Because the question of what information
2

1

was available in the public realm is irrelevant to this dispute,

2

the Court declines to take judicial notice of these publications.

3

B.

Legislative History

4

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of two legislative

5

hearings on the proposed bills, Pl. RFJN, Exhs. 2 & 3, and two

6

reports issued by the California Committee on the Judiciary, id.

7

Exhs. 13 & 14.

8

judicial notice.”

9

(9th Cir. 2012); see Ramos v. Capital One, N.A., No. 17-CV-00435-

“Legislative history is properly a subject of
Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1094 n.1

10

BLF, 2017 WL 3232488, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) (taking

11

judicial notice of senate committee hearing notes).

12

takes judicial notice of these exhibits.

The Court

13

C.

Government Statistics and Reports

14

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of statistics published

15

by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the California Department

16

of Corrections and Rehabilitation, contained in Exhibits 8 and 9.

17

Pl. RFJN.

18

disputes, are properly subject to judicial notice.

19

States v. Orozco-Acosta, 607 F.3d 1156, 1164 n.5 (9th Cir. 2010);

20

Castro v. ABM Indus. Inc., No. 14-CV-05359-YGR, 2015 WL 1520666,

21

at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015).

22

these publicly available reports published by government entities

23

are proper subjects of judicial notice.

24

judicial notice of Exhibits 8 and 9.

Statistics published by the government, which no party
See United

Further, as explained below,

The Court thus takes

25

D.

Publicly Available Government Documents

26

Finally, Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of the California

27

Department of Justice’s published and publicly available

28

memoranda and press releases, Pl. RFJN, Exhs. 6, 10, 11, 12, 15,
3

1

& 17, and an ICE policy document, id., Exh. 16.

The Court may

2

take judicial notice of records and reports of government

3

entities, including when that information is posted on a

4

government webpage.

5

v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010)

6

(taking judicial notice of information made publicly available by

7

a government entity on its website).

8

takes judicial notice of these exhibits.

Anderson, 673 F.3d at 1094 n.1; Daniels-Hall

Accordingly, the Court

9
10

III.

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

11

A.

News Articles

12

Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of news

13

articles from various publications throughout California.

Def.

14

RFJN, Exh. L.

15

notice of such publications to “indicate what was in the public

16

realm at the time,” it cannot take notice of their contents as

17

being true.

18

112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

19

articles are not proper subjects for judicial notice and the

20

Court declines to take judicial notice of Defendants’ Exhibit L.

As explained above, although the Court might take

See Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.,
The facts in these

21

B.

Legislative History

22

Defendants request judicial notice of several legislative

23

reports made available by the California Legislature.

Def. RFJN,

24

Exhs. F, G, I, & J.

25

subject of judicial notice,” Anderson, 673 F.3d at 1094 n.1, the

26

Court takes judicial notice of these exhibits.

Because “[l]egislative history is properly a

27

C.

Publicly Available Government Documents

28

Like Plaintiff, Defendants seek judicial notice of a number
4

1

of publicly available government documents released by the United

2

States Department of Homeland Security and the California

3

Department of Justice.

4

The Court takes judicial notice of these documents.

5

Anderson, 673 F.3d at 1094 n.1 (“We may take judicial notice of

6

records and reports of administrative bodies.”); Daniels-Hall v.

7

National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (taking

8

judicial notice of information made publicly available by a

9

government entity).

Def. RFJN, Exhs. A, B, C, D, E, H, & K.
See

10
11
12

IV.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court takes judicial

13

notice of Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

14

15, 16, and 17 attached to its Request for Judicial Notice.

15

Court also takes judicial notice of Defendants’ Exhibits A, B, C,

16

D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K.

17

notice of Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 4, 5, and 7, and Defendants’

18

Exhibit L.

19
20

The

The Court declines to take judicial

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 15, 2018

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5