• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Nos. 09-17241 & 09-17551
 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
_________________________KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
 Defendants
,andPROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
 Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants.
_________________________On Appeal From The United States District CourtFor The Northern District Of CaliforniaNo. CV-09-02292 VRWHonorable Vaughn R. Walker____________________________________________________
APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FORSTAY
____________________________________________________T
HEODORE
J.
 
B
OUTROUS
,
 
J
R
.R
EBECCA
J
USTICE
L
AZARUS
 E
NRIQUE
A.
 
M
ONAGAS
 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP333 South Grand AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90071(213) 229-7804T
HEODORE
B.
 
O
LSON
 M
ATTHEW
D.
 
M
C
G
ILL
 A
MIR
C.
 
T
AYRANI
 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 955-8500
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier,Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo
Case: 09-17241 11/23/2009 Page: 1 of 42 DktEntry: 7139901
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT........................................1FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..............................................5ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................12I. T
H
is Court Should Dismiss These Appeals Because It LacksJurisdiction To Review The District Court’s InterlocutoryDiscovery Orders.................................................................................12A. The Issue Conclusively Resolved By The District Court’sOrders Is Inseparable From The Merits Of The Case...............14B. Proponents’ Claim Of First Amendment Privilege IsReadily Distinguished From Those Privilege RulingsThis Court Has Treated As Collateral Orders...........................18II. T
HIS
C
OURT
S
HOULD
D
ENY
P
ROPONENTS
’
 
M
OTION
F
OR
A
 
S
TAY
P
ENDING
A
PPEAL
.................................................................................21A. Proponents Have Not Satisfied The Prerequisites To AStay Established By Fed. R. App. P. 8.....................................21B. Proponents Do Not Satisfy The Requirements For A StayPending Appeal.........................................................................251. Proponents Have Not Shown A Likelihood Of Success On The Merits...................................................252. Proponents Have Not Failed To Demonstrate ThatThey Will Be Irreparably Harmed By DisclosureUnder The Protective Order Contemplated By TheDistrict Court..................................................................333. The Balance Of Hardships Weighs In Favor Of Plaintiffs..........................................................................34CONCLUSION........................................................................................................35
Case: 09-17241 11/23/2009 Page: 2 of 42 DktEntry: 7139901
 
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases Page(s)
 
 Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace
, 570 F. Supp. 202 (N.D. Cal. 1983).........................15
 Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell
, 480 U.S. 531 (1987).......................................35
 Baker v. Adams County/Ohio Valley School Bd.
, 310 F.3d 927 (6th Cir.2002)...................................................................................................................24
 Black Panther Party v. Smith
, 661 F.2d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1981)..............................26
City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern
, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (C.D. Cal.2006)...................................................................................................................31
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.
, 337 U.S. 541 (1949)...........................13, 20
Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission
,260 U.S. 212 (1922)......................................................................................22, 23
 Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.
, 511 U.S. 863 (1994)........................13
 Dole v. Service Employees Union, AFL-CIO
, 950 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir.1991)...........................................................................................................
 passim
 
 In re Marriage Cases
, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)......................................................6
 In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig.
, 479 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2007).......................19
 Las Vegas v. Foley
, 747 F.2d 1294 (9th Cir. 1984).................................................32
 McLaughlin v. Service Employees Union, AFL-CIO, Local 280
, 880 F.2d170 (9th Cir. 1989)..............................................................................................27
 Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States
, 489 U.S. 794 (1989).................................3
 Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter 
, No. 08-678 (argued Oct. 5, 2009)....................20
 NAACP v. Alabama
, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).........................................................28, 29
Palmer v. Valdez
, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009)......................................................26
S.D. Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine
, 340 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2003).................31, 32
Case: 09-17241 11/23/2009 Page: 4 of 7 DktEntry: 7140122
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...