Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District

Filing 28

MOTION for Summary Judgment by North Central Regional Library District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Adams, Thomas) SEE PRAECIPE FILED, CT REC 47 , FOR CORRECTION OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS Modified on 2/14/2008 (CV, Case Administrator).

Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District

Doc. 28

1

The Honorable Edward F. Shea
Thomas D. Adams

2
3 Celeste Mountain Monroe

4 KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
5 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2900

Seattle, Washington 98101-3028

6 [phone]
7 Attorneys for Defendant North Central Regional Library District

8

9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE

12
13

14
15

SARAH BRADBURN, PEARL CHERRINGTON, CHARLES HEINLEN, and THE SECOND

)

) ) NO. CV-06-327-EFS
) ) ) ) )

AMENDMENT FOUNATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.

16

17
18 19

DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL LIBRARY DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

)
) ) )

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL 20 LIBRARY DISTRICT,
21

Defendant.

) )

i. INTRODUCTION
The mission of the North Central Regional Library District ("NCRL") is

DEFENDANT NCRL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1
CV-06-327-EFS
#658036 v i /42703-001

Lall Offices

KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
A p1"~re,\'.\hma' Service Corporation
12111 Third Avenue, Suile 29lU~ Scaltlc, Washinj!ion 98~i1-31128 Tclciihonc (2116) 223.13IJ, Filcsimilc (2U6) 682-710n

Dockets.Justia.com

1

to its mission and Internet Use Policy, filters internet access on computers made available for public use. NCRL does not disable the filter upon the request of an

2
3

4
5

adult patron. Plaintiffs contend that NCRL's Policy infringes upon rights
guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Article I, § 5 of the Washington State Constitution. In making these claims,
Plaintiffs ignore NCRL' s legal duties and discretion in fulfilling its essential

6 7
8

9
10
11

mission and complying with the objectives for which it was formed. For the
reasons that follow, NCRL seeks summary judgment on all claims alleged by
Plaintiffs. In the alternative, NCRL requests an order certifying to the

12
13

14
15

Washington Supreme Court the issue of the validity of NCRL's Policy under
Article I, § 5 of

the Washington State Constitution.!

16
17 18

II. ISSUES PRESENTED
Whether this Court should grant summary judgment dismissing

19

20
21

Plaintiffs' claims that NCRL's practice of offering only filtered internet access violates Article 1, § 5 of the Washington State Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; or
Whether this Court should certify to the Washington Supreme Court the question of the validity of NCRL' s internet filtering policy under Article 1, § 5 of the Washington State Constitution.

22
23

24
25

26 27
28

i See NCRL's Motion/or Certifcation a/Question a/State Constitutional Law.

DEFENDANT NCRL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2
CY-06-327-EFS
#658036 v i /42703-001

Law Ojjce.\'

KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
A Professional Service Corpora/ion
1201 Third Al'cnuc, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington 981l1l-JU28 Telephone (2116) nJ-IJlJ, Facsimile (206) (í82~7io(J