Academy Opposition
Academy Opposition
Academy Opposition
11 CENTRAL DISTRICT
13 Petitioner,
NOTICE OF RELATED FILING
14 vs.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 Please take notice that on July 21, 2020, Defendant Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
3 Sciences (“Academy”) filed the document hereto attached as Exhibit A—titled Academy’s
4 Objection to Motion to Unseal the Deposition of DDA Roger Gunson and Send the original
5 Transcript to Department 82 of the Los Angeles Superior Court—in People of the State of
7 The Academy believes this filing is also related to the present proceedings and therefore
10
13
14 By
Kristen Bird
15 Attorney for Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11 CENTRAL DISTRICT
13
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACADEMY’S OBJECTION TO MOTION
14 OF ROMAN POLANSKI TO UNSEAL
Plaintiff, THE DEPOSITION OF DDA ROGER
15 GUNSON AND SEND THE ORIGINAL
vs. TRANSCRIPT TO DEPARTMENT 82 OF
16 THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
ROMAN RAYMOND POLANSKI, a
17 California corporation,
Date: July 21, 2020
18 Defendant. Time: 8:30 am
Place: Department 100
19 Foltz Criminal Justice Center
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 Polanski, by the motion before the Court, is seeking to use his civil mandamus proceeding
4 challenging his expulsion from the Academy (Case No. 19STCP01398 in Department 82) as a
5 pretext and vehicle for unsealing and publicly filing the transcript of the deposition of Roger
6 Gunson. The Academy is not a party to Mr. Polanski’s criminal case and takes no position on
7 whether it was or was not appropriate for the Court to seal the transcript of Mr. Gunson’s
8 deposition, nor does the Academy have any interest in the success or failure of Mr. Polanski’s
9 long-running effort to unseal that transcript. However, the Academy does object to Mr.
10 Polanski’s request that the transcript – sealed or unsealed -- be sent to and/or lodged with
11 Department 82 for civil case No. 19STCP01398. Regardless of its contents, the Gunson
12 transcript is utterly irrelevant to Mr. Polanski’s writ proceeding against the Academy. The
13 transcript should not be interjected into that proceeding or sent to the fact-finder in that case absent
15 Mr. Polanski’s action against the Academy is a writ of mandamus challenging his 2019
16 expulsion from the Academy on the basis of his criminal conviction in this case. In such a writ
17 proceeding, material that was not before the decision makers – in this instance, the Academy’s
19 Evidence that was not available to the decision-makers is irrelevant as matter of well-
20 established law: “extra-record evidence can never be admitted merely to contradict the evidence
21 the administrative agency relied on … or to raise a question regarding the wisdom of that
22 decision.” W. States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 4th 559, 579, 888 P.2d 1268, 1279
23 (1995) (in an ordinary write proceeding); Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Dep't of Health Servs., 38
24
1
25 The Academy regrets it could not bring its position to Court’s attention at an earlier date.
When Mr. Polanski’s counsel raised the issue of bringing the Gunson deposition into the writ
26 proceedings in June, the Academy’s counsel made clear it would strongly object and requested
notice of any filings on the issue so that it could be heard. Nonetheless, the Academy was not
27
provided with timely notice of this motion. Mr. Polanski’s motion to unseal and the People’s
28 Opposition was first provided to the Academy last Friday.
2 proceeding). The reason is that a writ of mandamus proceeding for expulsion from a private
3 institution can only challenge the choice made by the decision-makers based on the evidence that
4 was before them; they cannot be held to account for information they did not have or rely upon.
5 Mr. Polanski was provided with an essentially unlimited amount of time to present any materials
6 he believed were important to the Academy. Over many months in 2018, Mr. Polanski, through
7 his counsel, provided the Academy with several hundred pages of materials, a video statement, a
8 DVD of a documentary, and a letter from his lawyer advocating his position. He did not seek to
10 Further, Mr. Polanski’s mandamus does not dispute the evidence supporting the ultimate
11 decision of the Academy – nor does he dispute the underlying conduct giving rise to his criminal
12 conviction -- but rather whether he was provided fair and reasonable procedural protections under
13 the circumstances. No testimony from Mr. Gunson from ten years ago will inform that analysis.2
15 Polanski’s action against the Academy and that action should not be used as a pretext for the
16 unsealing of the deposition. The Academy respectfully requests that – whatever decision is made
17 with respect to unsealing – the transcript not be unilaterially sent to Department 82, which may
18 carry with it the implication that this Court has read the transcript and deems it pertinent to the
20
21
22
2
Nor could the testimony be relevant to whether Mr. Polanski is disentitled to pursue his civil
23
mandamus claim against the Academy. Regardless of any testimony Mr. Polanski seeks to
24 proffer, it is not a defense to fugitive status that one was “justified” in fleeing. See, e.g., Willis v.
Mullins, No. CIV-F-04-6542AWIGSA, 2009 WL 1657451, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2009)
25 (listing the equitable issues considered in applying doctrine, which do not include procedural
defects in the prosecution). Not even innocence is a defense to fugitive disentitlement, though Mr.
26 Polanski has not asserted he is innocent. In re Scott’s Estate, 150 Cal. App. 2d 590, 592 (Ct. App.
1957) (“The fact that he may be innocent does not change his fugitive status.”). The Court
27
therefore has ample information to evaluate any disentitlement in the dispute with the Academy
28 without access to a sealed deposition transcript.
4 By
Kristen Bird
5 Attorney for Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 865 South Figueroa
4 Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543.
24
25 Kristen Bird
26
27
28
14 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I emailed the documents to the persons at the email addresses listed
in the above service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any
15 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
16 BY EXPRESS MAIL: Per normal business procedures, I caused an envelope containing these
documents to be delivered to a FedEx service carrier, with delivery fees provided for next day
17 delivery.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
19
Executed on July 21, 2020 at Los Angeles, California.
20
21
22
Kristen Bird
23
24
25
26
27
28