• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
No.09-1090
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
INRE:SONY BMGMUSICENTERTAINMENT;WARNERBROS.RECORDS,INC.; ATLANTIC RECORDINGCORPORATION; ARISTARECORDS LLC; AND UMGRECORDINGS,INC.
PETITIONERSON PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT TO THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
District Court Case No.07-11446-NG (D.Mass.)(Consolidated with District Court Case No.03-11661-NG (D.Mass.))Hon.Nancy Gertner,United States District Judge,presidingBRIEF
 AMICUS CURIAE
OFCOURTROOM VIEW NETWORK IN SUPPORTOF RESPONDENT AND AFFIRMANCE OF DECISION BELOW
Blanchard Press,Inc.,Boston,Mass –Law Printers (617)426-6690
Jonathan Sherman (admission pending)Dean Kawamoto (admission pending)Melissa Felder (admission pending)B
OIES
,S
CHILLER
& F
LEXNER
LLP5301 Wisconsin Avenue,N.W.Washington,D.C.20015(202) 237-2727
Counsel for Amicus CuriaeCourtroom View Network
Dated:January 29,2009
______________________________
 
i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The undersigned counsel of record provides the following statement under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1:
 Amicus Curiae
Courtroom View Network [dba] CourtroomConnect states that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly heldcorporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT........................................................iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................iiiINTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST OFCOURTROOM VIEW NETWORK.............................................................1STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS RELEVANT TO BRIEF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
........................................................................................3ARGUMENT.........................................................................................................6JUDGE GERTNER CORRECTLY HELD THAT LOCAL RULE83.3 GRANTS JUDGES THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT THERECORDING AND BROADCASTING OF DISTRICT COURTPROCEEDINGS..........................................................................................6A.The Text and Structure of Rule 83.3 Make Clear That DistrictCourts Have the Discretion to Permit Broadcasting and Recording of District Court Proceedings……………… ………………………... 6
The Unambiguous Text 
.............................................................7
 Petitioners' Rewrites and Surpuslage.......................................
8
Other Courts and the Conference Have Shown That Writing aBan on Coverage of all Adversarial  Proceedings is Not a Complicated Task 
....................................9
 Petitioners' Reading Defies Common Sense............................
10B. District Courts are Entitled to a“Special Degree of Deference” in Interpreting Their Own Rules and are Best Situated toExercise Their Discretion to Permit Coverage of AdversarialProceedings....................................................................................12CONCLUSION....................................................................................................15
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...