Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District

Filing 93

MEMORANDUM in Support of Proposed Certified Question by North Central Regional Library District. (Adams, Thomas)

Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District

Doc. 93

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 North Central Regional Library District
8

9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE

12
13

SAR BRABUR, PEAR
CHERRGTON, CHAES
HEINEN, and THE SECOND

14
15

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

AMNDMENT FOUNATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.

16
17
18

19

20
21

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL LIBRARY DISTRICT,

Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL

REGIONAL LIBRAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED CERTIFIED QUESTION

22
23

Á. NCRL's proposed certified question matches the parameters of the case.
Pursuant to the Court's April 23, 2008 order (Ct. Rec. 91), Defendant

24
25

26
27 28

North Central Regional Library District ("NCRL") and Plaintiffs conferred in an
DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED CERTIFIED QUESTION- 1
CV -06-327-EFS
#671390 vi /42703-001

Law Offces

KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
A Professional Service Corporation
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WashiDg~on 98101-3028 Telephone [phone], Facsimile [phone]

Dockets.Justia.com

1

effort to craft a question to jointly propose for certification to the Washington
Supreme Court. The parties' efforts were unsuccessfuL.

2
3

4
5

NCRL independently proposes this question for certification:

6 7
8

Whether a public library, consistent with Aricle 1, §5 of the Washington State Constitution, may filter internet access for all patrons to comply with funding
requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act,

9
10
11

advance the librar's collection development and other objectives, and provide a quality educational resource.
NCRL's certified question frames the legal issue in the context giving rise

12
13

to it. It is particularly important to avoid abstraction in a case that presents an
"as applied" constitutional challenge. NCRL accomplishes this by juxtaposing
the constitutional standard against the key factors influencing its application.

14
15

16 17
18

The elements ofNCRL's proposed question are addressed further below.

· Whether a public library, consistent with Article 1, §5 of the
Washington State Constitution, may filter internet access for all patrons ...

19

20
21

The Washington State Constitution is structurally different than the

22
23

United States Constitution. The federal constitution is a grant of enumerated
powers while the state constitution acts as a limitation on the otherwise plenary

24
25

powers of state governent. See Ino Ino Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wn.2d

26
27
28

DEFENDANT NORTH CENTRAL'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED CERTIFIED QUESTION- 2
CV-06-327-EFS
#671390 vI /42703-001

Law Offces

KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
A Professional Service Corporafion
1201 ThinJ A"CDUC, Suite 2900, Seattle, WClsbington 98101-3028 Telephone [phone], Facgmilc (206) 682-711111