Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District

Filing 61

REPLY MEMORANDUM re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by North Central Regional Library District. (Adams, Thomas)

Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District

Doc. 61

1

The Honorable Edward F. Shea
Thomas D. Adams

2

3 Celeste Mountain Monroe

4 KA 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

SAR BRABUR, PEAR
CHERRNGTON, CHARLES
HEINLEN, and THE SECOND

14
15

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

AMENDMENT FOUNATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.

16

17 18

DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL ) LIBRARY DISTRICT'S REPLY IN ) SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
)

) )

SUMARY JUDGMENT

19

20
21

NORTH CENTRA REGIONAL
LIBRARY DISTRICT,
Defendant.

) )
) ) ) )

22
23

24
25

26
27 28

DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL LIERARY DISTRICT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1
CV-06-327-EFS
#661488 v i /42703-001

'~all Offce.\'

KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
A ProJes.'ional Service Corporation
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2901l Scatlle, WlishiD~ton 981111-31128 Telephone (206) 223~ 13 13, Facsimile (206) 682-7 i Oil

Dockets.Justia.com

1

I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs' demand that NCRL provide unfiltered internet access upon the

2
3

4
5

request of an adult patron essentially asks NCRL to abdicate its traditional role
and responsibility for collection development. Moreover, if allowed, Plaintiffs'

6 7
8

demand would facilitate access to forms of expression which may not be
constitutionally-protected, which may jeopardize the interests of patrons and

9
10
11

staff, and which may compromise NCRL' s ability to comply with CIP A. As it

12
13

relates to internet filtering, NCRL's policy is rationally-related to meet
substantial interests and thus complies with the free speech provisions of the
state and federal Constitutions.

14
15

16 17 18

II. ARGUMENT
A. Plaintif Opposition Contravenes the Local Rules.

LR 10.I(a)(2) requires pleadings, including footnotes, to be doublespaced and presented in 14 point type. Plaintiffs ignore these rules. Properly
formatted, Plaintiffs' brief

19

20
21

would exceed the page limit established in LR 7.1(£).

22
23
B. Plaintif Bradburn, Cherrington, and SAF Lack Standing.

24
25

The "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing requires that a
plaintiff show injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Lujan v. Defenders of
DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL

26 27
28

LIBRAY DISTRICT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2
CY-06-327-EFS
#661488 v i /42703-001
Law Offces

KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
A Professional Service Corporation
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 29110, SCiilllc, WiishiD~lon 98101-3028 Telephone [phone], Facsimile (206) 682-71UO