Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
Declaration of Jesse Panuccio in Support of 216 MOTION TO REALIGN DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G. BROWN filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 216 ) (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 10/2/2009)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
__________ 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071-3197 (213) 229-7000 www.gibsondunn.com
October 2, 2009
Client Matter No.
(213) 229-6855 The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, California 94102 Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. C-09-2292 VRW
Dear Chief Judge Walker: At the conclusion of the hearing before this Court on September 25, 2009, the Court proposed to transmit images of counsel, the witness, and the Judge in our proceeding into an overflow courtroom. All parties indicated their consent to that proposal. The Court also asked the parties to consider their respective positions on the transmission of those same images beyond the overflow courtroom. In response to a question from counsel, the Court indicated that this transmission might potentially include broadcast on a television station. On September 30, 2009, counsel for Plaintiffs initiated meet-and-confer discussions in which the parties expressed their views on the issue raised by the Court. The parties' positions, as expressed by and to Plaintiffs' counsel, are set forth below. Plaintiffs do not object to the transmission of images from our proceeding beyond the overflow courtroom, and we would be happy to work with the parties, the Court, and others as appropriate regarding the specifics of how this would work. Counsel for the Attorney General, the City of San Francisco, Alameda County and Los Angeles County have expressed their support for Plaintiffs' position. Counsel for the Administration has indicated that they will support any position on which the other parties are able to reach an agreement. In the event the other parties cannot reach an agreement, the Administration will take no position.
The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker October 2, 2009 Page 2 Counsel for the Defendant-Intervenors have indicated that they are still reviewing the issue raised by the Court and hope to have a position by Monday of next week. We therefore expect Defendant-Intervenors to submit their own, separate statement of position to the Court next week. Thank you for raising this issue with the parties. Plaintiffs would be happy to discuss further with the Court should the Court wish to do so. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christopher D. Dusseault Christopher D. Dusseault Counsel for Plaintiffs cc: Counsel of Record
The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker October 2, 2009 Page 3
ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45 Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the Northern District of California, I attest that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories to this document. By: /s/ Sarah E. Piepmeier Sarah E. Piepmeier
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?