Entertainment Software Association et al v. Granholm et al

Filing 52

Entertainment Software Association et al v. Granholm et al

Doc. 52

Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP

Document 52

Filed 01/27/2006

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION, VIDEO SOFTWARE DEALERS ASSOCIATION, and MICHIGAN RETAILERS ASSOCIATION , Plaintiffs, v JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan; MICHAEL A. COX, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Michigan, et al, and KYM L. WORTHY, in her official capacity as Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney, Defendants. Dennis J. Levasseur (P39778) Alicia J. Blumenfeld (P67511) Bodman LLP 100 Renaissance Center Detroit MI 48243 [phone] Denise C. Barton (P41535) Jason R. Evans (P61567) Ann Sherman (P67762) Attorneys for Defendants Michigan Department of Attorney General Public Employment, Elections & Tort Div. P.O. Box 30736 Lansing MI 48909 [phone] DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Defendants Governor Jennifer Granholm and Attorney General Michael A. Cox oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Act violates constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Dockets.Justia.com

No. 05-73634 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEPE

Paul M. Smith Katherine A. Fallow Kathleen R. Hartnett Amy L. Tenney Jenner & Block LLP 601 Thirteenth Street, NW, Ste 1200 Washington DC 20005 [phone]

Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP

Document 52

Filed 01/27/2006

Page 2 of 4

Defendants file this cross-motion for summary judgment because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the constitutionality of the Act. In support of Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, Defendants state as follows: 1. 2005 Public Act 108 was passed by the People of the State of Michigan through

their elected legislators, and signed into law on September 14, 2005. 2. During the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, Defendants

presented only a portion of the legislative record in this case. This Court granted Plaintiffs' motion on November 9, 2005, noting that Defendants "are not likely to succeed on the merits." This Court's Opinion did not, however, foreclose any chance of Defendants' succeeding in demonstrating the Act's constitutionality. 3. Additional evidence and testimony presented in the accompanying brief

demonstrate that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Michigan's Act regulating minors' access to ultra-violent video games is constitutional. This evidence demonstrates that the State has a compelling interest and that the Act is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. 4. In support of this Motion, Defendants submit a brief explaining in detail why

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. 5. On January 20, 2006, Plaintiffs' attorney was contacted by telephone in order to

seek concurrence in this cross-motion, pursuant to ED Mich LCR 7.1(2). Plaintiffs' attorney did not concur in the relief requested, necessitating this motion. 6. On January 25, 2006 this court entered an order allowing Defendants to "correct

the record by filing a separate cross-motion for summary judgment that relies on the arguments contained in their response to plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment." 2

Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP

Document 52

Filed 01/27/2006

Page 3 of 4

This Court should not grant permanent injunction of the Act, signed into law by the People of the State of Michigan through their elected officials. Both the Act's legislative record and the additional evidence presented in the referenced brief not only defeat justify summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Defendants therefore request that this Honorable Court enter summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all remaining counts. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

3

Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP

Document 52

Filed 01/27/2006

Page 4 of 4

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Court's Order dated January 25, 2006, Defendants rely on the issues, arguments, and exhibits contained in their brief filed in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment dated January 23, 2006. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Respectfully submitted, Michael A. Cox Attorney General s/ Denise C. Barton P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 Primary E-Mail: [e-mail] (P41535) Dated: January 30, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 30 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing of the following: Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment with supporting brief. s/ Denise C. Barton (P41535) Dept of Attorney General Public Employment, Elections & Tort Defense Div. P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909-8236 [phone] Email: [e-mail]
2005/entertainment/cross mtn4sj

4