Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CA9Doc 341

CA9Doc 341

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
City and County of San Francisco's opposition to Proponents' motion to compel return of trial recordings. Filed 4/15/2011
City and County of San Francisco's opposition to Proponents' motion to compel return of trial recordings. Filed 4/15/2011

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Apr 16, 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

02/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
n:\govli1\li2011\100617\00693843.doc 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITKRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO,Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee,vs.EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,Defendants,DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. No. 10-16696U.S. District CourtCase No. 09-cv-02292 JW
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLEECITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'SOPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDERCOMPELLING RETURN OF TRIAL RECORDINGS
On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of CaliforniaThe Honorable Chief District Judge James WareDENNIS J. HERRERA,
State Bar #139669
 City AttorneyTHERESE M. STEWART,
State Bar
 
#104930
 Chief Deputy City AttorneyCHRISTINE VAN AKEN,
State Bar
 
#241755
MOLLIE M. LEE,
State Bar #251404
 Deputy City AttorneysCity Hall, Room 234One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, California 94102-4682Telephone: (415) 554-4708Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor-AppelleeCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Case: 10-16696 04/15/2011 Page: 1 of 8 ID: 7719511 DktEntry: 341-1
 
 1
n:\govli1\li2011\100617\00693843.doc 
Proponents' motion asks this Court to order the return and sealing of digitized video recordings of a civil rights trial that is a matter of tremendouscurrent interest. They seek to compel Judge Walker to return a portion of hispersonal judicial records, contending that his use of a snippet of the video inconnection with an academic presentation violated court rules and orders. That isnot accurate, for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' opposition to Proponents'motion, which San Francisco joins. But even if Proponents' contentions werecorrect, they overreach. Not only do they ask for an order requiring Judge Walkerto return his copy of the video recording, they seek to compel Plaintiffs and SanFrancisco to return the copies provided to them for use in connection with the case,while the case is still pending, without any basis. Certainly there is no reason tobelieve Plaintiffs or San Francisco have violated or will violate the protective ordersubject to which the video recording was made available to them, and that portionof their motion should be denied as baseless.In the end, Proponents' motion raises the larger issue of whether the trialvideo—the best, most accurate record of a trial of significant public importance—should be kept secret at all. No party currently seeks to use the video footage andthus this Court may wish to reserve this question for a later day, and indeed leaveit to the district court to determine in the first instance, but in the meanwhile nocredence should be given to Proponents' continuing narrative in this case andbeyond: the myth that they, rather than gay men and lesbians whose equalcitizenship they have continued to deny, are the victims here; that they or theirwitnesses are at risk of persecution or harassment because of their speech orreligious beliefs. There is simply no reason to believe that the release of the trialvideo poses any risk to Proponents or their witnesses—particularly when, asdiscussed below, all of the information captured in the video is already public.
Case: 10-16696 04/15/2011 Page: 2 of 8 ID: 7719511 DktEntry: 341-1
 
 2
n:\govli1\li2011\100617\00693843.doc 
And any such risk is negligible compared to the harm to the public interest fromkeeping the trial video secret.
I.
 
PROPONENTS CANNOT SHOW THAT RELEASE OF THE TRIALVIDEOS WOULD HARM THEM OR ANYONE.
In this and other cases, Proponents have repeatedly asserted, with negligiblesupporting evidence, that there was terrible harassment and intimidation during thecampaign directed at those who supported Prop 8. Indeed, Proponents sought tocloak their campaign messaging in secrecy by claiming, among other things, thatmaking it public would "chill" their previously associational rights by exposingthem to criticism and worse. See, e.g., Doc. 187 (Defendants-Intervenors' Motionfor Protective Order).
1
 When the hearsay and secondhand accounts in Proponents' supportingevidence is set aside, however, their evidence amounts to little more than the hurly-burly of a hard-fought political campaign—one in which opponents of Prop 8 werealso subject to intimidation and abuse.
See
,
e.g.
, Trial Transcript 1219-21(testimony of Helen Zia) ("And when we would be out there on the streets . . .handing out fliers people would just come up to us and say, you know, `you dike.'And excuse my language, Your Honor, but `You fucking dike.' Or `You're goingto die and burn in hell. You're an abomination.'" "I also felt endangered . . ."))Moreover, Proponents' own conduct belies any assertion that secrecy aboutthe Prop 8 campaign is necessary to protect them. Proponents have voluntarily andrepeatedly injected themselves and their views into the public sphere. They did sofirst by becoming official proponents of Proposition 8. They willingly spoke out invery public ways to advocate the enactment of a law that would govern the entireState and made no attempt to hide their identities or their views at that time. Even
1
Docket number references are to the District Court's ECF docket.
Case: 10-16696 04/15/2011 Page: 3 of 8 ID: 7719511 DktEntry: 341-1

You're Reading a Free Preview

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