Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 696

MOTION Administrative Relief filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 6/29/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 696

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] 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, Plaintiffs, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Dockets.Justia.com

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

official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of 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 ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

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 pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-11, Defendant-Intervenors Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com ("Proponents") hereby move the Court for an order requiring Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor to return to the Court immediately all copies of the trial video in their possession. BACKGROUND On January 13, 2010, the Supreme Court stayed this Court's order that the trial proceedings in this case be recorded and broadcast beyond the San Francisco federal courthouse. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705, 714-15 (2010). The stay remains in effect. Id. In court the next day, Proponents asked "for clarification ... that the recording of these proceedings has been halted, the tape recording itself." Trial Tr. 753. When the Court responded that the recording had "not been altered," Proponents reiterated that, "in light of the stay, ... the court's local rule ... prohibit[s] continued tape recording of the proceedings." Id. at 753-54 (emphasis added). Rejecting Proponents' objection, the Court stated that the "local rule permits ... recording for purposes of use in chambers and that is customarily done when we have these remote courtrooms or the overflow courtrooms." Id. (emphasis added). The Court concluded, "that's the purpose for which the recording is going to be made going forward." Id. On May 31, the Court sua sponte announced: "In the event any party wishes to use portions of the trial recording during closing arguments, a copy of the video can be made available to the party." Doc #672 at 2. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor each requested and obtained copies of the trial video--the former requesting the entire video, the latter the testimony of certain witnesses. See Doc ##674, 675. Closing arguments were held on June 16. Proponents thereafter requested Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor promptly to return all copies of the trial video in their possession to the Court, but they denied the request. See Decl. or Peter A. Patterson in Support of Proponents' Motion for Administrative Relief. ARGUMENT Now that closing arguments are complete, the sole purpose identified by this Court for 1
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

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

disseminating copies of the trial video to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor--potential use at closing argument--has been satisfied. There is simply no legitimate justification for permitting Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor to maintain possession of copies of the trial video. What is more, in issuing its stay order, the Supreme Court held that "irreparable harm" would "likely result" from public broadcast of the trial. Hollingsworth, 130 S. Ct. at 712. The risk of such harm, of course, does not depend on the means by which a trial recording is made public. And even with this Court's requirement that all copies of the trial video be "maintain[ed] as strictly confidential," Doc #672 at 2, it cannot be denied that dissemination beyond the confines of the Court has increased the possibility of accidental public disclosure. In light of this possibility, we respectfully submit that there is no justification for this Court to permit Plaintiffs and PlaintiffIntervenor to maintain copies of the trial recording. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Proponents request an order directing Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor to return to the Court immediately all copies of the trial video in their possession.

Dated: June 29, 2010 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC 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 By: /s/Charles J. Cooper Charles J. Cooper

2
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW