• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
N
O
.
 
09-17241U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALS
 F
OR
T
HE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
 
KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
,v.DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.
 Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees
.Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaCivil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)
 DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR-APPELLANTS’ BRIEFIN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Andrew P. PugnoL
AW
O
FFICES OF
A
NDREW
P.
 
P
UGNO
 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100Folsom, California 95630(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 FaxBrian W. RaumJames A. CampbellA
LLIANCE
D
EFENSE
F
UND
 15100 North 90th StreetScottsdale, Arizona 85260(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 FaxCharles J. Cooper
 
David H. Thompson
 
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
 
Nicole J. MossJesse PanuccioPeter A. PattersonC
OOPER AND
K
IRK
,
 
PLLC1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax
 Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants
Case: 09-17241 11/13/2009 Page: 1 of 38 DktEntry: 7129819
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................iCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.........................................................vINTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................2ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................9I.
 
T
HIS
C
OURT
H
AS
J
URISDICTION UNDER THE
C
OLLATERAL
O
RDER
D
OCTRINE
.......................................................................................................10A. The District Court Conclusively Denied Proponents’ Claim of FirstAmendment Privilege....................................................................................10B. Proponents’ First Amendment Privilege Claim Is a Critically ImportantIssue that Is Separable from the Underlying Merits......................................15C. Proponents’ First Amendment Privilege Claim Is “EffectivelyUnreviewable” on an Appeal from Final Judgment......................................19II. T
HIS
C
OURT
HA
S
J
URISDICTION
O
VER
P
ROPONENTS
’
 
P
ETITION FOR
 
A
W
RIT OF
M
ANDAMUS
..................................................................................20A. In the Absence of Interlocutory Review, No Other Means of ReviewAre Available.................................................................................................22B. Proponents Will Be Irreparably Harmed Absent Immediate Reviewby this Court..................................................................................................23C. The District Court’s Order Is Clearly Erroneous as a Matter of Law...........24D. At the Very Least, the Precise Question Presented Here Is one of First Impression.............................................................................................27- i -
Case: 09-17241 11/13/2009 Page: 2 of 38 DktEntry: 7129819
 
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................28STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES...................................................................29- ii -
Case: 09-17241 11/13/2009 Page: 3 of 38 DktEntry: 7129819
of 00

Leave a Comment

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