Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District

Filing 48

RESPONSE to Motion re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by North Central Regional Library District. (Adams, Thomas) SEE ERRATA FILED UNDER CT REC 51 WHICH CORRECTS TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS CONTAINED IN THIS RESPONSE Modified on 2/25/2008 (CV, Case Administrator).

Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District

Doc. 48

The Honorable Edward F. Shea

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE

SARAH BRADBURN, PEARL

)
)

CHERRNGTON, CHARLES
HEINLEN, and THE SECOND

) NO. CV-06-327-EFS
)

AMENDMENT FOUNATION,
Plaintiffs,
Y.

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL LIBRARY DISTRICT,

Defendant.

) DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL ) REGIONAL LIBRARY DISTRICT'S ) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION ) TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ) SUMARY JUDGMENT ) ) ) )
)

DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL LIBRARY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1
CY-06-327-EFS
#659258 v 1/42703-001

I,aw Offces

KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
A Professional Service Corpolalion
1201 Tbird Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WasbiDg10n 98101-3028 Telephone [phone], Facsimile [phone]

Dockets.Justia.com

1

I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiffs' Motion;" Ct. Rec. 40)
presents a sweeping mosaic of constitutional law that is not entirely germane and which

2
3

4
5

is predicated on exaggerations of fact. Plaintiffs Motion should be denied and, for the

6
7
8

reasons discussed in Defendant North Central Regional Library District's Motion for
Summary Judgment ("NCRL's Motion;" Ct. Rec. 28), judgment should be entered in

9
10
11

favor of NCRL. Alternatively, NCRL asks this Court to certify to the Washington

Supreme Court the issues raised by Plaintiffs which implicate Art. I, § 5 of the
Washington State Constitution. (Ct. Rec. 37)

12
13

14
15

NCRL responds to Plaintiffs' contentions In approximately the same order
Plaintiffs' present them. 1

16 17
18

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS

A. NCRL's Filter is not overly restrictive.
Plaintiffs claim that "the FortiGuard filter allows NCRL to block individual web

19

20
21

sites based on any criteria or no criteria at all according to the preferences of library
administrators." (Ct. Rec. 40, pg. 3). In fact, NCRL strives to restrict internet access

22
23

24
25

1 The form of

Plaintiffs' Motion contravenes LR 7.1(f) and 10.1(a)(2).

26
27

28

DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL LIBRARY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMARY
JUDGMENT - 2
CY-06-327-EFS
#659258 v i /42703-00 I
Law Offces

KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
A Profe,'isional Service Corporation
12111 Third A\'cnuc. Suile 29011, Scanle, Washin~lon 98111-31128 Tclciihiinc (2116) 223-1313. Facsimile (206) 682-7IHII