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
11-17255 #29

11-17255 #29

Ratings: (0)|Views: 447 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #29 - City and County of San Francisco's Principal Brief
Doc #29 - City and County of San Francisco's Principal Brief

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Nov 15, 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

 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'SPRINCIPAL BRIEF; CASE NO. 10-16696
n:\govli1\li2010\100617\00738245.doc 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITKRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee,MEDIA COALITION,Intervenor-Appellee,vs.EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,Defendants,DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants.No. 11-17255U.S. District CourtCase No. 09-cv-02292 JW
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLEECITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'SPRINCIPAL BRIEF
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 234, One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, California 94102-4682Telephone: (415) 554-4708Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor-AppelleeCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Case: 11-17255 11/14/2011 ID: 7965200 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 1 of 33
 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'SPRINCIPAL BRIEF; CASE NO. 10-16696
i
n:\govli1\li2010\100617\00738245.doc 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
 
ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................... 3
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 3
 
I.
 
THE VIDEO RECORDINGS ............................................................... 3
 
II.
 
PROPONENTS' NARRATIVE PORTRAYINGPROPOSITION 8 SUPPORTERS AND WITNESSES ASVICTIMS OF INTIMIDATION AND HARRASMENT ISNOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. .................................................. 6
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 10
 
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 10
 
I.
 
PROPONENTS HAVE SHOWN NO FACTS THATPROVIDE A COMPELLING REASON TO KEEP THEVIDEO RECORDINGS UNDER SEAL. ........................................... 11
 
II.
 
THE COURT SHOULD REJECT PROPONENTS'ARGUMENT THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCESSURROUNDING THE MAKING OF THE VIDEORECORDINGS JUSTIFY DENYING THE PUBLIC ACCESSTO THEM. .......................................................................................... 17
 
A.
 
Local Rule 77-3 Does Not Require Maintaining The Seal. ...... 17
 
B.
 
This Court Should Hold That The First AmendmentGuarantees Public Access To The Video Recording. ............... 17
 
C.
 
 Hollingsworth v. Perry
Does Not Justify RetainingThe Seal. .................................................................................... 19
 
III.
 
THE PUBLIC INTEREST STRONGLY SUPPORTSUNSEALING THE TRIAL RECORDINGS. ..................................... 20
 
A.
 
Proponents' Campaign To Pass Proposition 8 Relied OnMessages That Lesbian And Gay Couples ThreatenChildren And Families—Messages ProponentsAbandoned At Trial. ................................................................. 21
 
Case: 11-17255 11/14/2011 ID: 7965200 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 2 of 33
 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'SPRINCIPAL BRIEF; CASE NO. 10-16696
ii
n:\govli1\li2010\100617\00738245.doc 
B.
 
Proponents Failed At Trial To Establish The LegitimateJustification For Proposition 8. ................................................. 24
 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 27CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 28
 
Case: 11-17255 11/14/2011 ID: 7965200 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 3 of 33

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)//-->