Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
Letter from Charles J. Cooper. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 1/14/2010)
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
Filed01/14/10 Page1 of 2
Cooper & Kirk
A Professional Limited Liability Company
Charles J. Cooper firstname.lastname@example.org
1523 New Hampshire Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600 Fax (202) 220-9601
January 14, 2010 The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker Chief Judge United States District Court for the Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. C-09-2292 VRW (N.D. Cal.)
Dear Chief Judge Walker: I write on behalf of Defendant-Intervenors ("Proponents") to respectfully request that the Court halt any further recording of the proceedings in this case, and delete any recordings of the proceedings to date that have previously been made. As the Court will recall, on Monday morning, just before trial commenced, the Court noted that its orders concerning public dissemination had been temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court. In response, Plaintiffs nonetheless asked the Court to record the proceedings for the purpose of later public dissemination if the stay was subsequently lifted: Since the stay is temporary and the Supreme Court is going to be considering these issues, and given the importance of the issues in this case, we would request that the Court permit recording and preservation of the proceedings today and through Wednesday .... [G]iven the fact that this is a temporary stay, and the stay order does not mention anything about restricting the ability of the court to capture the images on the cameras and preserve them in the event the stay is lifted and Judge Kozinski issues his order, we think that would be a good solution so then the materials could be posted when those -- those things happen. Tr. of Proceedings at 14-15 (Jan. 11, 2010) (Attachment A). In response, Proponents objected to the recording of the proceedings as inconsistent with the Supreme Court's temporary stay, see id. at 16, but the Court accepted Plaintiffs' proposal.
Filed01/14/10 Page2 of 2
The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker January 14, 2010 Page 2 of 2 The Supreme Court yesterday extended the stay indefinitely. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. __, No. 09A648, slip op. (Jan. 13, 2010) (per curiam). The Supreme Court's ruling removes all question that recording of the proceedings is prohibited. As the Supreme Court explained, prior to this Court's amendment to Local Rule 77-3 (which amendment, the Court concluded, was not properly adopted), Local Rule 77-3 "banned the recording or broadcast of court proceedings." Hollingsworth, slip op. at 4 (emphasis added). Unamended Local Rule77-3 thus governs these proceedings, and, as the Supreme Court held, it has "the force of law." Id. at 8 (quotation marks omitted). In short, it is now clear that the Supreme Court's stay will remain in place indefinitely, and the prohibition against the recording of these proceedings remains binding. For these reasons, Proponents renew their objection to any further recording of the proceedings in this case, and request that the Court order that any recordings previously made be deleted. Sincerely, /s/ Charles J. Cooper Charles J. Cooper Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors Cc: Counsel of Record
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?