CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. et al v. TRUMP et al
Filing
23
Emergency STATUS REPORT by ABILIO JAMES ACOSTA, CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 57, # 2 Exhibit 58, # 3 Exhibit 59)(Boutrous, Theodore)
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 1 of 20
EXHIBIT 57
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 2 of 20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., et al., CA No. 1:18-cv-02610-TJK
Plaintiffs,
v.
Washington, D.C.
Friday, November 16, 2018
10:00 a.m.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING
HELD BEFORE THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. KELLY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
Anne M. Champion, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 229-7804
For the Defendants:
James M. Burnham, Esq.
Michael H. Baer, Esq.
Eric R. Womack, Esq.
Joseph E. Borson, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 353-5049
Court Reporter:
Timothy R. Miller, RPR, CRR, NJ-CCR
Official Court Reporter
U.S. Courthouse, Room 6722
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 354-3111
Proceedings recorded by machine shorthand; transcript
produced by computer -aided transcription.
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 3 of 20
PROCEEDINGS
1
2
2
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
Your Honor, this is civil
3
matter 18-2610, Cable News Network, Incorporated, et al., v.
4
Donald J. Trump, et al.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Will counsel please approach the lectern and state
your appearance for the record.
MR. BOUTROUS:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Theodore
Boutrous for Plaintiffs CNN and Jim Acosta.
THE COURT:
Good morning, sir.
MS. CHAMPION:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Anne
Champion from Gibson Dunn for Plaintiffs CNN and Jim Acosta.
MR. LIPSHUTZ:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Joshua
Lipshutz from Gibson Dunn for Plaintiffs CNN and Jim Acosta.
14
THE COURT:
15
Good morning.
MR. BURNHAM:
Good morning, Your Honor.
James
16
Burnham here on behalf of the defendants, along with Michael
17
Baer, Eric Womack and Joseph Borson.
All right.
Good morning to you all.
18
THE COURT:
19
We are here for an oral ruling on the plaintiffs'
20
21
22
23
application for a temporary restraining order.
And I'd better get some water right away here.
(Brief pause.)
On November 7th, 2018, President Trump held a news
Soon after it started, he
24
conference at the White House.
25
called on Plaintiff Acosta, a reporter for CNN, to take a
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 4 of 20
3
1
question from him.
2
about the caravan of migrants heading to the U.S.-Mexican
3
border, the President indicated that he wanted to move on to
4
call on another reporter but Mr. Acosta would not be seated
5
and continued trying to ask his question and then he would
6
not give up the microphone, even when approached by an
7
intern employed by the White House Press Office who
8
attempted to retrieve it from him.
9
several comments toward Mr. Acosta while this happened,
After Mr. Acosta asked several questions
The President made
10
including, You are a rude, terrible person, and, When you
11
report fake news which CNN does a lot, you are an enemy of
12
the people.
13
microphone.
14
Eventually, Mr. Acosta did relinquish the
That night, his Secret -- the Secret Service asked
15
Mr. Acosta to relinquish his hard pass, his credential that
16
allows him access to the White House press facilities.
17
same evening, the White House Press Secretary, Sarah
18
Sanders, posted a video on Twitter purporting to show the
19
exchange between Mr. Acosta, the intern and the President.
20
In a tweet, Ms. Sanders cited the conduct in the video as
21
the reason that Mr. Acosta's hard pass had been revoked.
22
a tweet, she characterized Mr. Acosta as placing her hand --
23
his hands on the intern and she also asserted that Mr.
24
Acosta had been disrespectful to his colleagues to not allow
25
them to -- the opportunity to answer a question.
That
In
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 5 of 20
4
The next day, on November 8th, CNN sent a letter
1
2
to the White House requesting that Ms. -- the reporter's
3
credentials be reinstated immediately.
4
White House simply did not like the content of the questions
5
posed to the President and threatened to take legal action
6
if the revocation was not reversed.
CNN alleged that the
The next day, on November 9th, the President
7
8
suggested that other reporters might have their credentials
9
revoked and that reporters must treat the White House with
10
respect and treat the presidency with respect and he also
11
conceded that Mr. Acosta's -- but he also conceded that Mr.
12
Acosta's conduct toward the Press Office intern had not been
13
overly horrible.
Then the long holiday weekend intervened.
14
And on
15
the morning of Tuesday, November 13th, CNN and Mr. Acosta
16
filed this lawsuit and moved for a temporary restraining
17
order.
18
That morning, after -- the same morning, after the
19
suit was filed, Ms. Sanders issued a written statement
20
setting forth reasons for the revocation of Ms. -- Mr.
21
Acosta's hard pass.
22
has filed a complaint challenging the suspension of Jim
23
Acosta's hard pass.
24
CNN and we will vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
25
CNN, who has nearly 50 additional hard pass holders, and Mr.
It read:
We have been advised that CNN
This is just more grandstanding from
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 6 of 20
5
1
Acosta is no more or less special than any other media
2
outlet or reporter with respect to the First Amendment.
3
After Mr. Acosta asked the President two questions, each of
4
which the President answered, he physically refused to
5
surrender a White House microphone to an intern so that
6
other reporters might ask their questions.
7
first time this reporter had -- has inappropriately refused
8
to yield to other reporters.
9
orderly and fair press conference when a reporter acts this
This was not the
The White House cannot run an
10
way which is neither appropriate nor professional.
11
First Amendment is not served when a single reporter, of
12
more than 150 present, attempts to monopolize the floor.
13
there is no check on this type of behavior, it impedes the
14
ability of the President, the White House staff and members
15
of the media to conduct business.
The
If
To obtain a temporary restraining order, the
16
17
plaintiffs must clearly demonstrate, one, a likelihood of
18
success on the merits of their claim; two, a likely
19
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
20
three, a balance of the -- that the balance of the equities
21
is in their favor; and, four, that the TRO is in the public
22
interest.
23
the TRO, the Court merges the latter two factors into a
24
single inquiry.
25
And where the Government is the party opposing
Much of our discussion at the hearing the other
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 7 of 20
1
day concerned the applicability or inapplicability of the
2
D.C. Circuit case Sherrill v. Knight.
3
talk about the likelihood of success of [sic] the merits
4
with regard to the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process
5
6
claim.
6
I'm going to first
Much of our discussion at the hearing concerned
7
the applicability of Sherrill v. Knight.
8
closely and I think it's fair to conclude, as the Government
9
argued, that there are at least some portions of it that
I've read the case
10
plaintiffs would rely on that are fairly characterized as
11
dicta, but if Sherrill stands for anything at all,
12
it's unavoidable to conclude that it -- to conclude anything
13
other than it stands for the Fifth Amendment's due process
14
clause protects a reporter's First Amendment liberty
15
interest in a White House press pass.
16
holding I agree with or not is another thing, but that is
17
not relevant.
18
district judge,
19
as I see it.
20
I think
Whether that's a
The case has not been abrogated and, as a
I must apply the precedent of this circuit
So let me quote from Sherrill.
Quote, In our
21
view, the procedural requirements of notice and the factual
22
basis for denial and opportunity for the applicant to
23
respond to these and a final written statement of the
24
reasons for denial are compelled by the foregoing
25
determination that the interest of a bona fide Washington
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 8 of 20
1
correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is
2
protected by the First Amendment.
3
interest undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be
4
7
denied without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
This First Amendment
5
A few more words about Sherrill before I move on.
6
The Government argued that the holding of Sherrill
7
is limited to Secret Service restrictions based on security
8
concerns, and the Government points out there's nothing in
9
the record here that the security of the President or the
10
White House is at issue, but Sherrill, as I read it,
11
provides no reason why the court's recognition of a First
12
Amendment interest in a press pass -- in a White House press
13
pass would turn on whether that decision to limit that
14
interest was made by the White House Press Office or the
15
Secret Service or any other part of the executive branch,
16
and the case suggests no reason to me why the due process
17
required to deny someone a pass would turn on a specific
18
component of the executive branch that made that decision.
19
The court was very clear that the basis of this interest was
20
rooted in the First Amendment and not the decision of any
21
part of the executive branch to agree that Sherrill should
22
be granted the press pass.
23
The Government also made the point that there is
24
case law for the proposition that the public doesn't have a
25
general First Amendment right to enter the White House
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 9 of 20
I have no quarrel with that at all, but Sherrill
1
grounds.
2
holds that once the White House opens a portion of it up to
3
reporters for their use, some kind of First Amendment
4
liberty interest protected by a due process right is
5
created, and I simply have no choice but to apply that
6
precedent here.
7
The Government also argued that some of the
8
factual underpinnings of Sherrill had changed and that
9
today, the White House routinely exercises discretion in
10
different ways, giving out hard passes to certain
11
journalists aside from whatever review the Secret Service
12
undertakes for security purposes.
13
be relevant in examining the nature of whatever liberty
14
interest Sherrill holds is at stake here, but even assuming
15
that was a distinction that would make a difference in terms
16
of how I apply Sherrill,
17
record here; I don't have any declarations or sworn
18
statements that explain how that factual landscape has
19
shifted since Sherrill was decided.
20
I can see how that might
I don't have any evidence in the
And, finally, the Government makes the point that
21
the First Amendment does not restrict the ability of the
22
President to dictate the terms of how he chooses to engage
23
or not engage with any particular journalist.
24
entirely correct to me, but nothing in the holding of
25
Sherrill relating to the Fifth Amendment due process right
That seems
8
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 10 of 20
9
In fact, Sherrill
1
it recognized contradicts that.
2
explicitly recognizes the President's right to engage with
3
whomever he pleases.
4
Mr. Acosta again.
5
government must provide Mr. Acosta due process if it is to
6
revoke his hard pass.
7
plaintiffs succeed on the First -- on the Fifth Amendment
8
claim hinges on whether the government provided adequate due
9
process to Mr. Acosta.
Certainly, he need not ever call on
But under Sherrill, as I read it, the
Accordingly, the likelihood that the
The court in Sherrill held that this
10
process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the
11
government's reasons and a written decision.
12
court -- although the court in Sherrill did not have
13
occasion to address it, when an important interest is at
14
stake and when the government is able to provide this
15
process before deprivation, it generally must do so.
16
is no evidence that one of the few exceptions to this rule
17
would apply here such as some kind of emergency.
18
hold that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of
19
success on their claim that adequate process was not
20
provided to Mr. Acosta.
21
within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that
22
the Government could not tell me at oral argument who made
23
the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta's press pass --
24
his hard pass.
25
And all the
There
So I do
Indeed, whatever process occurred
On the notice, as for notice, the Government
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 11 of 20
10
1
points to only one statement that could possibly constitute
2
prior notice to Mr. Acosta that his pass would be revoked,
3
the President's statements to him during the exchange at the
4
press conference on November 7th, but the President's
5
statements did not revoke -- did not reference Mr. Acosta's
6
hard pass at all, let alone that it would be revoked;
7
therefore, that statement cannot have put him on notice of
8
the government's intention to revoke it.
9
Now, it is true that the public and Mr. Acosta
10
were eventually provided two things.
11
to why his hard pass was revoked through Ms. Sanders's
12
tweets; and a written statement of explanation, apparently
13
prompted by this litigation, but given their timing and
14
their lack of connection to Mr. Acosta's opportunity to
15
rebut -- which we'll talk about in a moment -- these belated
16
efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.
17
First, explanations as
As for Mr. Acosta's opportunity to be heard in
18
rebuttal, the Government points to the letter CNN sent to
19
the White House the day after his hard pass was revoked, but
20
this does not reflect a meaningful opportunity to rebut the
21
government's reasons for the revocation or to challenge the
22
appropriateness of the government's action.
23
can avail themselves of the mail, and there's nothing in the
24
record that demonstrates that whoever the decisionmaker --
25
the initial decisionmaker was in this case read or
Indeed, anyone
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 12 of 20
And, of course, the letter was sent
1
considered the letter.
2
after the revocation, not beforehand.
3
opportunity to be heard seems especially important in this
4
case when the record strongly suggests that one of the
5
initial specific reasons for the revocation cited by the
6
government -- that Mr. Acosta laid his hands on the White
7
House intern -- was likely untrue and was at least partly
8
based on evidence that was of questionable accuracy.
The need for the
At oral argument, the Government made the point
9
10
that more process would not have helped here because the
11
ultimate decisionmaker -- I believe, is how the Government
12
referred to the President -- at a minimum, ratified this
13
action.
14
at this point, is devoid of evidence concerning who, in the
15
government, first reached this decision; how they reached
16
the decision; whether they considered CNN's letter or
17
whether they considered potential other responses by the
18
government,
Maybe that's so, but on the record before me which,
I simply cannot assume that that would be so.
19
So in light of all the above, I find that the
20
plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their
21
Fifth Amendment due process claim.
22
23
24
25
I'll now talk about irreparable harm with regard
to that claim.
The plaintiffs also must demonstrate that
irreparable harm will result in the absence of preliminary
11
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 13 of 20
12
That harm must be both certain and great, and it
1
relief.
2
must be actual and not theoretical.
3
Acosta has already occurred.
4
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his
5
claim that his Fifth Amendment due process rights were
6
violated such that his liberty interests were deprived;
7
therefore,
8
whether harm will occur absent preliminary relief, but for
9
plaintiffs to satisfy their burden, the harm must be
Here, harm to Mr.
As already explained, he's
I don't need to speculate or theorize as to
Constitutional injuries are often considered
10
irreparable.
11
irreparable due to their very nature.
12
Circuit has held that, quote, Suits for declaratory and
13
injunctive relief against the threatened invasion of a
14
constitutional right do not ordinarily require proof of any
15
injury other than the threatened constitutional deprivation
16
itself, closed quote.
Indeed, the D.C.
17
On the other hand, procedural due process injuries
18
do not necessarily cause irreparable harm when, for example,
19
the thing that is deprived is tangible property, because the
20
due process violation that led to that injury might be
21
reparable with money damages.
22
process violation at issue that has led to the deprivation
23
-- to a deprivation of what Sherrill requires me to
24
recognize as a liberty interest as opposed to a property
25
interest that's grounded in, quote, The First Amendment
Here, the procedural due
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 14 of 20
1
13
guarantee of freedom of the press, closed quote.
Moreover, the First Amendment interests, as
2
3
recognized in Sherrill, were not vested merely in
4
publications or agencies.
5
individual journalists themselves.
6
CNN may still send another journalist or other journalist to
7
the White House does not make the harm to Mr. Acosta any
8
less irreparable.
9
interest without the process prescribed by the court in
They were liberties of the
For that reason, that
Each day that he is deprived of that
10
Sherrill, he suffers a harm that cannot be remedied in
11
retrospect.
12
briefings that have already occurred or to conversations in
13
the White House press facilities that have already been had.
14
And so on this highly, highly unusual set of facts
The Court cannot restore his access to press
15
and interests at stake, I do find that the plaintiffs have
16
met their burden of establishing that irreparable harm has
17
and will continue to occur in the absence of preliminary
18
relief.
19
20
21
The next factors are the balance of the equities
and the public interests.
In balancing the equities at stake, I find that
22
the harm to Mr. Acosta from sustaining an ongoing violation
23
of his Fifth Amendment due process rights outweighs the
24
government's interest in orderly, respectful press
25
conferences.
This is especially so because the government
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 15 of 20
14
1
can serve its stated interest in other ways during this
2
litigation or perhaps until it is back before me arguing
3
that their due process obligations had been fulfilled.
4
Obviously, the balance of the equities would not likely have
5
come out this way if Mr. Acosta had been excluded for safety
6
or security reasons, in which case, my deference to the
7
executive equities would be far, far higher.
8
this circumstance,
9
branch's weighty general interest in control of its White
But even in
I don't take lightly the executive
10
House press facility, but the balance here is tipped by the
11
fact that Sherrill obligates me to recognize the violation
12
of Mr. Acosta's due process rights and the resulting impact
13
on his First Amendment interests.
14
finding that these factors favor the plaintiffs,
15
considered case law that suggests that constitutional
16
violations are always contrary to the public's interest.
17
So in finding -- also, in
I have also
So because the plaintiffs have shown a likelihood
18
that the government has violated Mr. Acosta's Fifth
19
Amendment rights under Sherrill, because the type of injury
20
he has suffered is irreparable and because the public
21
interest in the balance of equities favor granting a
22
temporary restraining order, I will grant the application
23
for a -- for the temporary restraining order here.
24
order the defendants immediately restore Mr. Acosta's hard
25
pass until further order of the Court or the restraining
I will
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 16 of 20
15
And if, at some point after restoring the
1
order expires.
2
hard pass, the Government would like to move to vacate the
3
restraining order on the grounds that it has fulfilled its
4
due process obligations, then it may, of course, do so and I
5
will promptly address that and then the remaining bases for
6
the TRO.
I want to emphasize the very limited nature of
7
8
today's ruling.
9
I've found that it must be granted on -- as to the due
In resolving this TRO,
I haven't -- because
10
process claim, I haven't had to reach the plaintiffs' First
11
Amendment claim at all in which they alleged that the
12
government engaged in viewpoint or content discrimination.
13
So I want to make very clear a couple of things.
14
determined that the First Amendment was violated here;
15
have not determined what legal standard would apply to the
16
First Amendment claim here; I have not determined the
17
specific nature of the First Amendment interest that
18
Sherrill recognizes -- or that Sherrill at least doesn't
19
describe but recognizes, yes; and I haven't determined what
20
portions of Sherrill, if any, would bind me on those
21
questions.
22
I have not
I
So let me turn to the parties, then, and suggest
23
that as far as procedurally moving forward goes, one -- the
24
avenue I thought of is to give you all some time to consult
25
with your clients; assess your positions; and come back
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 17 of 20
1
early next week -- perhaps Tuesday afternoon -- to see how
2
you all would like to proceed from here.
3
this litigation will continue in a rapid pace.
4
16
party?
MR. BOUTROUS:
5
6
Thank you.
I trust the -Either
Thank you very much,
Your Honor.
That sounds like a good process to us.
7
We can
We may be able to just confer and then report back
8
confer.
9
Monday with the proposal and see if we can work out either a
10
briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction or
11
something else and, if not, we can just come back and see
12
you on Tuesday.
THE COURT:
13
14
All right.
a written joint report for the parties --
15
MR. BOUTROUS:
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. BOUTROUS:
18
Would that --
-- on Monday?
Yeah.
Would that work for the
Court?
THE COURT:
19
20
So your proposal would be
All right.
That's fine, if that's --
but I'd like to hear from Mr. Burnham.
MR. BURNHAM:
21
Your Honor, I'd like to talk to our
That should be okay, but I'd just like to talk to
22
clients.
23
our clients and come up with a proposal before we --
24
25
THE COURT:
Absolutely.
I mean, we can't have any
quicker turnaround than a joint report --
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 18 of 20
1
MR. BURNHAM:
2
THE COURT:
3
MR. BURNHAM:
4
THE COURT:
5
MR. BURNHAM:
6
Right.
-- on Monday.
So --
Right.
I mean,
I --
The timing certainly works for us.
Thank you.
THE COURT:
7
Fair enough.
So I'll get that report.
8
Obviously, if you can agree on something, great; if you
9
can't agree, if you would still submit it jointly but just
10
lay out your respective positions on where we go from here,
11
I'll take that under advisement, and my hope is -- well,
12
depending on what you all agree to, if we need to come back
13
to court next week, even though it's the short week -- the
14
holiday -- I will be available to do that.
15
MR. BURNHAM:
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. BOUTROUS:
18
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor.
All right.
We greatly appreciate it, Your
Honor.
All right.
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. BOUTROUS:
And then just procedurally, under
21
the TRO, we'll just proceed to get the hard pass back
22
immediately and have it reactivated.
23
17
THE COURT:
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Is there any other -- anything
24
further -- else from the plaintiffs that you think I need to
25
address today before I turn to Mr. Burnham?
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 19 of 20
1
MR. BOUTROUS:
2
THE COURT:
3
MR. BOUTROUS:
4
THE COURT:
5
MR. BURNHAM:
6
THE COURT:
8
All right.
So Your Honor, under the local
Okay.
Would it be okay, given all that's
going on, to suspend that deadline until we file our joint
status report?
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. BURNHAM:
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. BURNHAM:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. BOUTROUS:
17
MR. BURNHAM:
18
MR. BOUTROUS:
19
THE COURT:
20
Yeah.
I assume the plaintiffs --
I assume --
-- would agree to that.
We haven't spoken about it.
Yes.
That's fine with -Okay.
That's fine with us, Your Honor.
Yeah.
So that deadline certainly will
be, you know, held in abeyance --
21
MR. BURNHAM:
22
THE COURT:
23
Thank you.
Sir?
MR. BURNHAM:
10
I think that's it, Your Honor.
rules, our opposition to the PI is due on Tuesday.
7
9
18
Thank you, Your Honor.
-- vacated until I get your report and
we'll see where we go from there.
24
MR. BURNHAM:
25
THE COURT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
All right.
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 23-1 Filed 11/19/18 Page 20 of 20
1
MR. BOUTROUS:
2
THE COURT:
3
19
counsel's dismissed.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Thank you.
If there's nothing further, then,
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
All rise.
This Honorable Court
is adjourned.
(Proceedings concluded at 10:28 a.m.)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
I, TIMOTHY R. MILLER, RPR, CRR, NJ-CCR, do hereby certify
10
that the above and foregoing constitutes a true and accurate
11
transcript of my stenographic notes and is a full, true and
12
complete transcript of the proceedings to the best of my
13
ability, dated this 16th day of November 2018.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/s/Timothy R. Miller, RPR, CRR, NJ-CCR
Official Court Reporter
United States Courthouse
Room 6722
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
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?