Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 371

MOTION to Stay Public Broadcast filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. Motion Hearing set for 1/11/2010 08:30 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 1/8/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 371

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document371

Filed01/08/10 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)* [e-mail] David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)* [e-mail] Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)* [e-mail] Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)* [e-mail] Jesse Panuccio (DC Bar No. 981634)* [e-mail] Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)* [e-mail] 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587) [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)* [e-mail] James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)* [e-mail] 15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL * Admitted pro hac vice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL Plaintiffs, KNIGHT, MARTIN GUTIERREZ, MARK JANSSON, AND v. PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM'S MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. MANDAMUS BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney Date: January 11, 2010 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his Time: 10:00 a.m. official capacity as Director of the California Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A STAY CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document371

Filed01/08/10 Page2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, Defendant-Intervenors.

Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325) [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)* [e-mail] Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)* [e-mail] 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] * Admitted pro hac vice

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A STAY CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document371

Filed01/08/10 Page3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 11, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., or at anytime the Court may hear the matter before that date, before the Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, United States District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Defendant-Intervenors will move the Court for a stay pending resolution of their petition for writ of mandamus. For the following reasons, Defendant-Intervenors respectfully seek a stay of the Court's order directing that the trial proceedings in this case will be recorded and webcast on the Internet. The issue to be decided is: Are Defendant-Intervenors entitled to a stay pending resolution of a petition for writ of mandamus?

On January 6, 2010, the Court ordered that the trial proceedings in this case would be recorded and made available for a "webcast" on YouTube. Four factors inform whether a federal court should issue a stay pending appellate review: (1) the appellants' likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the possibility of irreparable harm absent a stay; (3) the possibility of substantial injury to other parties if a stay is issued; and (4) the public interest. See Golden Gate Rest. Ass'n v. San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). For the reasons Proponents have already stated to this Court, and for the reasons explained in the attached petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition (Ex. 1), the Court's order is contrary to law and thus Proponents are correct on the merits of their challenge. Also for reasons previously stated, and for the reasons stated in the attached mandamus petition, Proponents will be irreparably harmed if the trial proceedings, due to commence on January 11, 2010, are publicly broadcast. The other parties to this action will not be substantially injured if a stay is issued, as there is no right to public broadcast of a trial and, indeed, public broadcast--as explained by the Judicial Conference of the United States--is likely to negatively affect the fairness of a trial. The
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A STAY CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document371

Filed01/08/10 Page4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

public interest weighs heavily in favor of fair trials in the federal courts, and in favor of federal courts' following the proper, legal procedures in promulgating rules of practice. The public interest in access to the trial will not be diminished by a stay because, as explained in the attached petition, there is no public right to public broadcast of a trial and the trial here will remain open to the public and the press. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this motion for a stay. Dated: January 8, 2010 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL By: /s/Charles J. Cooper Charles J. Cooper

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A STAY CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW