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
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Dex Media West, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 10-Cv-1857 (W.D. Wa.; Jan. 13, 2011) (Mot. for SJ)

Dex Media West, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 10-Cv-1857 (W.D. Wa.; Jan. 13, 2011) (Mot. for SJ)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10,250|Likes:
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by yellow pages companies arguing that the Seattle ordinance regulating yellow pages distribution is unconstitutional.
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by yellow pages companies arguing that the Seattle ordinance regulating yellow pages distribution is unconstitutional.

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Feb 02, 2011
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

02/02/2011

pdf

text

original

 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT (NO. 10-CV-1857)
 
42414-0030/LEGAL19779831.14
 
Perkins Coie
LLP
 
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800Seattle, WA 98101-3099Phone: 206.359.8000Fax: 206.359.9000
THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBARTUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONAT SEATTLEDEX MEDIA WEST, INC.; SUPERMEDIALLC; and YELLOW PAGES INTEGRATEDMEDIA ASSOCIATION d/b/a YELLOWPAGES ASSOCIATION,Plaintiffs,v.CITY OF SEATTLE and RAY HOFFMAN, inhis official capacity as Director of SeattlePublic Utilities,Defendants. No. 10-CV-1857
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:February 4, 2011ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Case 2:10-cv-01857-JLR Document 14 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 36
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT (No. 10-CV-1857) – i
42414-0030/LEGAL19779831.14
 
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800Seattle, WA 98101-3099Phone: 206.359.8000Fax: 206.359.9000
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1II. BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................3A. The Ordinance........................................................................................................3B. Yellow Pages Phone Books...................................................................................6C. Yellow Pages Distribution.....................................................................................8D. Publishers’ Opt-Out Systems and the City’s NewRequirement...........................................................................................................8E. The City’s Goals....................................................................................................9F. Recycling of Yellow Pages and Other Materials...................................................9III. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...............................................................10IV. THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT.....................................10A. Yellow Pages Are Fully Protected Speech..........................................................11B. Because Yellow Pages Are Fully Protected Speech, theOrdinance Plainly Violates the First Amendment...............................................161. Required License.....................................................................................162. Distribution Fee.......................................................................................173. Required Message....................................................................................184. Opt-Out Registry......................................................................................19C. Even If Yellow Pages Were Commercial Speech, theOrdinance Would Violate the First Amendment.................................................201.
 Discovery Network 
Requires Invalidation of theOrdinance as a Whole..............................................................................212. Each Part of the Ordinance Violates CommercialSpeech Standards.....................................................................................23a. Required License.........................................................................23 b. Distribution Fee...........................................................................23c. Required Message........................................................................24d. Opt-Out Registry..........................................................................24V. THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE...................................24A. The Ordinance Has a Discriminatory Purpose or Effect.....................................25B. The Burdens Imposed by the Ordinance Outweigh Its LocalBenefits................................................................................................................26VI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................29
Case 2:10-cv-01857-JLR Document 14 Filed 01/13/11 Page 2 of 36
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT (NO. 10-CV-1857) – ii
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800Seattle, WA 98101-3099Phone: 206.359.8000Fax: 206.359.9000
C
ASES
 
 Ad World, Inc. v. Doylestown Twp.
, 672 F.2d 1136 (3rd Cir. 1982)............................................15
 Am. Acad. of Pain Mgmt. v. Joseph
, 353 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2004)............................................13
 Ark. Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland 
, 481 U.S. 221 (1987).........................................................2
 Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union
, 535 U.S. 564 (2002)........................................................11
 Ass’n of Nat’l Advertisers, Inc. v. Lungren
, 44 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 1994)...............................13, 14
 Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. City of Atlanta Dep’t of Aviation
, 322 F.3d1298 (11th Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................................2
 Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias
, 468 U.S. 263 (1984)..............................................................24, 25
 Ballen v. City of Redmond 
, 466 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2006)............................................................24
 Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox
, 492 U.S. 469 (1989).................................................3, 14
 Berger v. City of Seattle
, 569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009)..................................................16, 18, 23
 Bernstein v. U.S. Dep’t of State
, 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996).........................................13
 Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.
, 463 U.S. 60 (1983)...........................................13, 19, 20
 Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth.
, 476 U.S. 573 (1986).............3, 24, 25
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 
, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).............................................................................10
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y.
, 447U.S. 557 (1980).......................................................................................................20, 21, 23, 29
City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.
, 507 U.S. 410 (1993)....................................passim
Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach
, 607 F.3d1178 (9th Cir. 2010),
reh’g granted 
, 623 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2010).......................................14
 Edenfield v. Fane
, 507 U.S. 761 (1993)...................................................................................2, 20
 Fla. Bar v. Went For It, Inc.
, 515 U.S. 618 (1995).................................................................19, 20
 Fla. Star v. B.J.F.
, 491 U.S. 524 (1989).......................................................................................19
 Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement 
, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).....................................16, 18
 Friends of E. Fork, Inc. v. Thom
, 688 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (W.D. Wash. 2010)..............................10
 FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas
, 493 U.S. 215 (1990)...................................................................17
G.K. Ltd. Travel v. City of Lake Oswego
, 436 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2006)....................................17
Gaudiya Vaishnava Soc’y v. City & County of San Francisco
, 952 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir.1990).........................................................................................................................................17
Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n, Inc. v. United States
, 527 U.S. 173 (1999).........................24
Grosjean v. Am. Press Co.
, 297 U.S. 233 (1936)...........................................................................3
 Hays County Guardian v. Supple
, 969 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1992).................................................15
Case 2:10-cv-01857-JLR Document 14 Filed 01/13/11 Page 3 of 36

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->