Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Doc 696

Doc 696

Ratings: (0)|Views: 651|Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Proponents' Motion for Administrative Relief, asking the Court to order Plaintiffs to immediately return to the Court all copies of the trial video in their possession. Filed 6/29/10
Proponents' Motion for Administrative Relief, asking the Court to order Plaintiffs to immediately return to the Court all copies of the trial video in their possession. Filed 6/29/10

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Jun 29, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/24/2010

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEFCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
COOPER AND KIRK, PLLCCharles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
hnielson@cooperkirk.com
Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
nmoss@cooperkirk.com
 Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)*
 ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNOAndrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
andrew@pugnolaw.com
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUNDBrian W. Raum
 
(NY Bar No.
 
2856102)*
braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
 jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028A
TTORNEYS FOR
D
EFENDANT
-I
NTERVENORS
D
ENNIS
H
OLLINGSWORTH
,G
AIL
J.
 
K
NIGHT
,
 
M
ARTIN
F.
 
G
UTIERREZ
,
 
M
ARK
A.
 
J
ANSSON
,and P
ROTECT
M
ARRIAGE
.
COM
 
Y
ES ON
8,
 
AP
ROJECT OF
C
ALIFORNIA
R
ENEWAL
 *
 
Admitted
 pro hac vice
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAULT. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,Plaintiffs,CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,Plaintiff-Intervenor,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his officialcapacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G.BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as AttorneyGeneral of California; MARK B. HORTON, in hisCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAILJ. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ,MARK A. JANSSON,AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’SMOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVERELIEF
 
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document696 Filed06/29/10 Page1 of 4
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEFCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
official capacity as Director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her officialcapacity as Deputy Director of Health Information& Strategic Planning for the California Departmentof Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in hisofficial capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the Countyof Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his officialcapacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk forthe County of Los Angeles,Defendants,andPROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIARENEWAL,Defendant-Intervenors. Additional Counsel for Defendant-IntervenorsALLIANCE DEFENSE FUNDTimothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
 jlorence@telladf.org
Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
animocks@telladf.org
801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001Telephone: (202) 393-8690, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622*
 
Admitted
 pro hac vice
 
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document696 Filed06/29/10 Page2 of 4
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEFCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
TO THE
 
PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKENOTICE that pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-11, Defendant-Intervenors Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez,Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com (“Proponents”) hereby move the Court for an order requiringPlaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor to return to the Court immediately all copies of the trial video intheir possession.
BACKGROUND
 On January 13, 2010, the Supreme Court stayed this Court’s order that the trial proceedingsin this case be recorded and broadcast beyond the San Francisco federal courthouse.
 Hollingsworthv. Perry
, 130 S. Ct. 705, 714-15 (2010). The stay remains in effect.
 Id 
.In court the next day, Proponents asked “for clarification … that the recording of theseproceedings has been halted, the tape recording itself.” Trial Tr. 753. When the Court respondedthat the recording had “
not 
been altered,” Proponents reiterated that, “in light of the stay, … thecourt’s local rule … prohibit[s] continued tape recording of the proceedings.”
 Id 
. at 753-54(emphasis added). Rejecting Proponents’ objection, the Court stated that the “local rule permits recording for purposes of 
use in chambers
and that is customarily done when we have these remotecourtrooms or the overflow courtrooms.”
 Id 
. (emphasis added). The Court concluded, “that’s thepurpose for which the recording is going to be made going forward.”
 Id 
.On May 31, the Court
sua sponte
announced: “In the event any party wishes to use portionsof the trial recording during closing arguments, a copy of the video can be made available to theparty.” Doc #672 at 2. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor each requested and obtained copies of thetrial video—the former requesting the entire video, the latter the testimony of certain witnesses.
See
Doc ##674, 675.Closing arguments were held on June 16. Proponents thereafter requested Plaintiffs andPlaintiff-Intervenor promptly to return all copies of the trial video in their possession to the Court,but they denied the request.
See
Decl. or Peter A. Patterson in Support of Proponents’ Motion forAdministrative Relief.
ARGUMENT
Now that closing arguments are complete, the sole purpose identified by this Court for
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document696 Filed06/29/10 Page3 of 4

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
John Lay liked this
wingspirit liked this
wingspirit liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->