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 or section
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
3:09-cv-02292 #816-0

3:09-cv-02292 #816-0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 93 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #816 Motion for stay pending appeal of order to unseal trial recordings. See filing in 9th Circuit for attachments
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66116195
Doc #816 Motion for stay pending appeal of order to unseal trial recordings. See filing in 9th Circuit for attachments
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66116195

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Sep 24, 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

11/15/2011

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT-
INTERVENORS‘ MOTION
FOR STAY PENDING APPEALCASE 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.EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacityas Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS,in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his officialCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 JW
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAILJ. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ,MARK A. JANSSON, ANDPRO
TECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
MOTION FOR STAY PENDINGAPPEAL
 Chief Judge James WareDate: October 28, 2011Time: 9 a.m.Location: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document816 Filed09/23/11 Page1 of 15
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT-
INTERVENORS‘ MOTION
FOR STAY PENDING APPEALCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics;LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity asDeputy Director of Health Information & StrategicPlanning for the California Department of Public
Health; PATRICK O‘CONNELL, in his official
capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of 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-JW Document816 Filed09/23/11 Page2 of 15
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281
DEFENDANT-
INTERVENORS‘ MOTION
FOR STAY PENDING APPEALCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
TO THE
 
PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKENOTICE that, on October 28, 2011, or as soon as the matter may be heard, before the HonorableJames Ware, United States District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden GateAvenue, San Francisco, California, Defendant-Intervenors Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez,Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com
(―Proponents‖) will move the C
ourt for a stay pending appeal.
1
 
The issue to be decided is: Are Proponents entitled to a stay pending appeal?
―In 1996, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted
a policy opposing the public
 broadcast of [trial] court proceedings.‖
 Hollingsworth v. Perry
, 130 S. Ct. 705, 711 (2010);
see also
 
Ex. 2 at 54. This policy was rooted in ―decades of experience and study‖ showing the potentially
negative impact of broadcasting on trial proceedings. Ex. 3 at 1;
see also Hollingsworth
, 130 S. Ct.at 711-12; Ex. 4 at 46-47. In July 2009 the Judicial Conference forcefully reiterated to Congress its
conclusion that the ―negative [e]ffects of cameras in trial court proceedings far 
outweigh any
 potential benefits.‖ Ex. 3 at 1.Also in 1996, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council ―voted to adopt the policy of the JudicialConference of the United States regarding the use of cameras in the courts.‖ Ex. 5. The Council‘s
policy thus provi
ded: ―The taking of photographs and radio and television coverage of court proceedings in the United States district courts is prohibited.‖
 Id 
. ―[T]his policy [was] . . . bindingon all courts within the Ninth Circuit.‖
 Id 
. Accordingly, this Court adopted Local Rule 77-3, which
 prohibits the ―taking of photographs, public broadcasting or televising, or recording for those purposes in the courtroom or its environs, in connection with any judicial proceeding.‖
 Hollingsworth
, 130 S. Ct. at 710-11 (quoting Rule 77-3);
see also id 
. at 707 (Rule 77-
3 ―forbid[s]the broadcasting of trials outside the courthouse in which a trial takes place‖); Ex. 6.
 Despite
these authorities and the Supreme Court‘s decision in this very case enforcing them,
this Court ordered that video recordings of the trial proceedings in this case be unsealed and made
1
 
Although we have noticed this motion for the next available date on this Court‘s calendar 
that is at least 35 days from today,
see
Civ. L.R. 7-2(a), we are also filing a motion asking the Courtto expedite its consideration of our stay motion. Specifically, we request that the Court rule on our
stay motion before it is mooted by operation of the Court‘s order unsealing the video
-recording onSeptember 30, 2011.
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document816 Filed09/23/11 Page3 of 15

Activity (2)

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

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)//-->