• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, Appellant,v. BARRY SOETORO, in his capacityas a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse, also known as Barack Obama, et al., Appellees. No. 09-5080Consolidating No. 09-5161
APPELLEES'RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHYAPPELLANT'SMOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SHOULD NOT BECONSIDERED AND DECIDED WITHOUT A RESPONSE
Appellees do not object to AppellantHemenway's Motion to Take Judicial Notice ("Motion") being decided without a response. Appellees did not respond toAppellant's Motion because, like appellant's underlying claim in this case, it is patently meritlessand a further waste of this Court's time and resources.Tothe extent this Court believes a response would be appropriate andhelpful, Appellees submit the following:The issues on appeal in this case are (1) whether Appellantshavestated aclaimunder the interpleader statute by alleging a cognizable stake and by meetinginterpleader's adversity requirement;and, relatedly, (2) whether the district court
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1213344 Filed: 10/30/2009 Page: 1
 
2abused its discretion in reprimanding Appellant Hemenway for filing a frivoloussuit. The documents attached to Appellant'sMotion have absolutely no bearingonthe issues raised on appeal and therefore judicial notice should not be taken.
See Larson v. Dep'tof State
, 565 F.3d 857, 870 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ("We deny the plaintiffs' request for judicial notice . . . because those articles are irrelevant to our inquiry; taking notice of them would not affect our opinion.");
 see also
,
e.g.
,
Trans-Sterling, Inc. v. Bible
, 804 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1986) (notingthat a courtneed not take judicial notice of irrelevant facts);
United States v. Byrnes
, 644 F.2d107, 112 (2d Cir. 1981) (holding that a trial court properly refused to take judicialnotice of regulations that were irrelevant).Further, Rule 201 only permits judicial notice of "adjudicative facts" that are"(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the . . . court or (2)capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracycannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b);
 see
Charles Alan Wright& Kenneth W. Graham,21B
 Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence
§ 5110.1(2d ed. 2005) (stating that Fed. R. Evid. 201 applies to judicialnoticedeterminations by the courtsofappeals). Attachments 2, 3, 5, and 6 to Appellant'sMotion containunauthenticated documents and rambling commentaries of uncertain authorship that are laden with speculation and opinion,making themincapable of accurate and ready determination.
See Blue Man Vegas, LLC v.
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1213344 Filed: 10/30/2009 Page: 2
 
3
 N.L.R.B.
, 529 F.3d 417, 427 n. * (D.C. Cir. 2008) (decliningto take notice of  published commentary and opinion);
 Forsham v. Califano
, 587 F.2d 1128, 1138(D.C. Cir. 1978) (speculation not appropriate for judicial notice).The Court should deny the motion.DATED : October 30, 2009Respectfully submitted,
PERKINS COIE
LLP
By:/s/Robert F. Bauer RBauer@perkinscoie.comKate E.AndriasAndrew H. Werbrock 607 Fourteenth Street N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005-2003Telephone: 202.628.6600Facsimile: 202.434.1690Attorneys for Appellees President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1213344 Filed: 10/30/2009 Page: 3
of 00

Leave a Comment

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