Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document371 Filed01/08/10 Page1 of 4

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
2 [email protected]
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
3 [email protected]
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
4 [email protected]
Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
5 [email protected]
Jesse Panuccio (DC Bar No. 981634)*
6 [email protected]
Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)*
7 [email protected]
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
8 Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
10 [email protected]
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
11 Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
13 [email protected]
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
14 [email protected]
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
15 Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028

16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON,
17 and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
18
* Admitted pro hac vice
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,
22 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL
Plaintiffs, KNIGHT, MARTIN GUTIERREZ,
23
MARK JANSSON, AND
24 v. PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING
25 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official PETITION FOR WRIT OF
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. MANDAMUS
26 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney
Date: January 11, 2010
27 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his Time: 10:00 a.m.
official capacity as Director of the California Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
28
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A STAY
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document371 Filed01/08/10 Page2 of 4

1 Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official
2 capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information
& Strategic Planning for the California Department
3
of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
4 official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
5 capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
the County of Los Angeles,
6
Defendants,
7
and
8
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
9 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-
10 SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
11 YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL,
12
Defendant-Intervenors.
13

14
Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
15

16 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
17 [email protected]
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
18 Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851
19 Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
[email protected]
20 Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
[email protected]
21 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 393-8690, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622
22
* Admitted pro hac vice
23

24

25

26

27

28
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A STAY
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document371 Filed01/08/10 Page3 of 4

1 TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE

2 NOTICE that on January 11, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., or at anytime the Court may hear the matter before that
3
date, before the Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, United States District Court, Northern District of
4
California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Defendant-Intervenors will move the
5
Court for a stay pending resolution of their petition for writ of mandamus.
6

7 For the following reasons, Defendant-Intervenors respectfully seek a stay of the Court’s order

8 directing that the trial proceedings in this case will be recorded and webcast on the Internet.

9 The issue to be decided is: Are Defendant-Intervenors entitled to a stay pending resolution of a
10 petition for writ of mandamus?
11

12
On January 6, 2010, the Court ordered that the trial proceedings in this case would be
13
recorded and made available for a “webcast” on YouTube. Four factors inform whether a federal
14

15 court should issue a stay pending appellate review: (1) the appellants’ likelihood of success on the

16 merits; (2) the possibility of irreparable harm absent a stay; (3) the possibility of substantial injury

17 to other parties if a stay is issued; and (4) the public interest. See Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. San
18 Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776
19
(1987)). For the reasons Proponents have already stated to this Court, and for the reasons
20
explained in the attached petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition (Ex. 1), the Court’s order is
21
contrary to law and thus Proponents are correct on the merits of their challenge. Also for reasons
22

23 previously stated, and for the reasons stated in the attached mandamus petition, Proponents will be

24 irreparably harmed if the trial proceedings, due to commence on January 11, 2010, are publicly

25 broadcast. The other parties to this action will not be substantially injured if a stay is issued, as
26
there is no right to public broadcast of a trial and, indeed, public broadcast—as explained by the
27
Judicial Conference of the United States—is likely to negatively affect the fairness of a trial. The
28
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A STAY
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document371 Filed01/08/10 Page4 of 4

1 public interest weighs heavily in favor of fair trials in the federal courts, and in favor of federal
2 courts’ following the proper, legal procedures in promulgating rules of practice. The public
3
interest in access to the trial will not be diminished by a stay because, as explained in the attached
4
petition, there is no public right to public broadcast of a trial and the trial here will remain open to
5
the public and the press.
6

7 CONCLUSION

8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this motion for a stay.

9
Dated: January 8, 2010 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC
10 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,
11 GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A.
JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON
12 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
13
By: /s/Charles J. Cooper
14 Charles J. Cooper
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A STAY
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page1 of 48

NO. 10-____
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN RE: DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ,
MARK A. JANNSON, AND PROTECT-MARRIAGE.COM—YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Petitioners
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORIA, Respondent,
KRISTEN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL K. KATAMI, JEFFREY J.
ZARRILLO, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NON-PARTY THE
MEDIA COALITION, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as
Governor of California, EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney
General of California, MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the
California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics,
LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information &
Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health, PATRICK
O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda,
DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the
County of Los Angeles, and HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, Real Parties in Interest.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)

EMERGENCY PETITION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR

A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Andrew P. Pugno Charles J. Cooper

LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO Michael W. Kirk
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Jesse Panuccio
Folsom, California 95630 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC
(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 Fax 1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Brian W. Raum (202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax
James A. Campbell
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
Attorneys for Petitioners
15100 North 90th Street
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page2 of 48

Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3, Petitioners respectfully certify that their

petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California in district court case number 09-CV-2292

(VRW) (the “mandamus petition”) is an emergency petition requiring at least

temporary “relief … in less than 21 days” in order to “avoid irreparable harm.”

Petitioners are a “primarily formed ballot committee” and the “official

proponents” of Proposition 8 (“Proponents”), who were permitted to intervene in

this case to defend that California ballot initiative. The mandamus petition

concerns the district court’s decision to broadcast the trial proceedings in this case,

beginning this coming Monday, January 11, 2010.

As elaborated in Proponents’ mandamus petition, the district court’s

unlawful decision to broadcast the trial proceedings will cause immediate

irreparable harm. Because the trial is set to begin on Monday, “relief is needed in

less than 21 days”—and indeed by Monday morning—in order to prevent these

irreparable injuries. Cir. R. 27-3(a). Accordingly, Proponents respectfully request

that the Court immediately issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition barring the

district court from proceeding with its plan to broadcast the trial, or in the

alternative, at least temporarily stay the district court’s hand pending disposition of

Proponents’ mandamus petition.

i
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page3 of 48

All of the grounds the mandamus petition were presented to the district

court, and were rejected.

This morning, Proponents’ counsel notified counsel for the other parties that

they would file this mandamus petition presently and served counsel for the other

parties with copies thereof by email.

The telephone numbers and addresses of the attorneys for the parties are as

follows:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kristin M. Attorney for Defendant Clerk-

Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Recorder Patrick O’Connell:
Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarillo:
Claude Franklin Kolm
Theodore B. Olson Lindsey G. Stern
Matthew C. McGill COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Amir C. Tayrani 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, Oakland, CA 94612-4296
LLP (510) 272-6710
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW [email protected]
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 955-8668
Fax: (202) 467-0539 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor
[email protected] City and County of San Francisco:

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney

Christopher D. Dusseault Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City
Ethan D. Dettmer Attorney
Theane Evangelis Kapur Danny Chou, Chief of Complex and
Enrique A. Monagas Special
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, Litigation
LLP Vince Chhabria, Deputy City
Attorney
333 S. Grand Avenue Erin Bernstein, Deputy City Attorney
Los Angeles, CA 90071 Christine Van Aken, Deputy City

ii
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page4 of 48

(213) 229-7804 Attorney

Fax: (213) 229-7520 Mollie M. Lee, Deputy City Attorney
[email protected] CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO
David Boies OFFICE OF THE CITY
Theodore H. Uno ATTORNEY
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
LLP Room 234
333 Main St San Francisco, CA 4102-4682
Armonk, NY 10504 (415) 554-4708
(914) 749-8200 Fax: (415) 554-4655
Fax: (914) 749-8300 [email protected]
[email protected]

Attorney for Defendant Registrar-

Attorneys for Defendants Recorder Dean C. Logan:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Director Mark B. Horton, and Judy Whitehurst
Deputy Director Linette Scott: OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL –
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Kenneth C. Mennemeier 500 West Temple St
Andrew Walter Stroud Los Angeles, CA 90012
MENNEMEIER GLASSMAN & (213) 974-1845
STROUD LLP [email protected]
980 9th St, Ste 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 553-4000 Attorneys for Defendant-
Fax: (916) 553-4011 Intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth,
[email protected] Gail J. Knight, Martin F.
Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and
ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8, A
Attorneys for Defendant Attorney Project of California Renewal:
General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.:
Charles J. Cooper
Gordon Bruce Burns Michael W. Kirk
Attorney General’s Office, Dept. of Jesse Panuccio
Justice COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1300 I Street, 17th Floor 1523 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Sacramento, CA 95814 Washington, D.C. 22036

iii
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page5 of 48

(916) 324-3081 (202) 220-9600

[email protected] Fax: (202) 220-9601
[email protected]
Tamar Pachter [email protected]
Office of the California Attorney [email protected]
General
455 Golden Gate Ave, Suite 11000 Andrew P. Pugno
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P.
(415) 703-5970 PUGNO
Fax: (415) 703-1234 101 Parkshore Dr., Ste. 100
[email protected] Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 608-3065
[email protected]

Brian W. Raum
James A. Campbell
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
15100 N. 90th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 444-0020
[email protected]

iv
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page6 of 48
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page7 of 48

Corporate Disclosure Statement Under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1

Defendant-Intervenors-Petitioners are not a corporation but a primarily

formed ballot committee under California Law. See CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 82013 &

82047.5.

- vi -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page8 of 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 CERTIFICATE ......................................................................i

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........................................................vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................ix

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1

JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................4

ISSUE PRESENTED.................................................................................................4

STATEMENT............................................................................................................4

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................11

I. Absent Mandamus, No Other Means of Review is Available. ...................12

II. Proponents Will Be Irreparably Harmed Absent Immediate Review.........13

III. The District Court Clearly Erred as a Matter of Law..................................21

A. The Purported Revision of Local Rule 77-3 ............................................22

B. Ninth Circuit Judicial Council Policy ......................................................27

C. The Lack of Guidelines Governing the Pilot Program.............................28

D. Public Broadcast of the Trial in This Case Would Violate Proponents’

Due Process Right to a Fair Trial. ........................................................29

IV. The Question Presented Is One of First Impression but Is Capable of

Creating a Persistent Disregard of the Federal Rules. ................................30

vii
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page9 of 48

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................30

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES...................................................................32

viii
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page10 of 48

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981)...............................................................30

Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 881 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1989);.............. 12, 30

Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977) ..................23

Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965). .......................................................... 14, 29, 30

In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 688 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1982). ............ 12, 13, 16

In re Complaint Against District Judge Billy Joe McDade, No. 07-09-90083

(7th Cir. Sept. 28, 2009) .......................................................................................22

In re Imperial “400” Nat’l, Inc., 481 F.2d 41 (3d Cir. 1973) .................................28

In re McBryde, 117 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1997) ..........................................................28

In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 564 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009)...... 13, 20, 21, 25

Jinro Am., Inc. v. Secure Inv., Inc., 266 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2001) ..........................30

Miner v. Atlass, 363 U.S. 641 (1960) ......................................................................24

NRDC v. Evans, 316 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................. 26, 27

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 09-17241, slip op. at 15-16

(9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2010) .................................................................................... 12, 30

Petry v. Block, 737 F.2d 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ......................................................24

Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992)........................24

Russell v. Hug, 275 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2002) ..........................................................28

Star Editorial, Inc. v. United States District Court, 7 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 1993) .....12

ix
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page11 of 48

United States v. Carr, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74757 (E.D. Cal. 2006)…………26

United States v. Edwards, 785 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1986).......................................20

United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278 (11th Cir. 1983).....................................21

United States v. Hernandez, 251 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................23

United States v. Klubock, 832 F.2d 664 (1st Cir. 1987) .........................................25

United States v. Terry, 11 F.3d 110 (9th Cir. 1993) ................................................25

United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Education, 747 F.2d 111 (2d Cir. 1984) ...............21

Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929)………………………………………….21

Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 752 F.2d 16

(2d Cir. 1984) .......................................................................................................20
Statutes

5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B)................................................................................................26

28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1).......................................................................................... 2, 27

28 U.S.C. § 1651....................................................................................................1, 4

28 U.S.C. § 2071..................................................................................... 2, 22, 25, 26

28 U.S.C. § 2077(b) .......................................................................................... 23, 25

Rules

FED. R. APP. P. 21.......................................................................................................1

FED. R. CIV. P. 83(a)(1)..................................................................................... 22, 24

N.D. Cal. L.R. 77-3..................................................................................... 23, 27, 28

x
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page12 of 48

N.D. Cal L.R. 83-1...................................................................................................22

N.D. Cal L.R. 83-3(a) ..............................................................................................22

Constitutional Provisions

CAL. CONST. art. I, § 7.5.............................................................................................1

Other Authorities

Notes of Advisory Committee on 1985 Amendments to FED. R. CIV. P. 83...........24

Thomas M. Messner, The Price of Prop 8, Heritage Foundation, available at

www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm.................................................17

www.youtube.com/usdccand...................................................................................11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcKJEHrvwDI.................................................17

xi
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page13 of 48

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, FED. R. APP. P. 21, and this Court’s Circuit

Rule 21, Petitioners respectfully petition for an emergency writ of mandamus or

prohibition barring the district court from broadcasting the trial in this case. With

trial set to begin Monday, January 11, 2010, an immediate writ of mandamus or

prohibition (or at least a temporary stay pending disposition of this petition, see

Cir. Advisory Comm. Note to Rules 21-1 to 21-4) is necessary to stop the irrepara-

ble harm that will flow from the unlawful broadcast of the trial proceedings.

INTRODUCTION

This petition arises in a case presenting a federal constitutional challenge to

a provision of the California Constitution (“Prop 8”), providing that “[o]nly mar-

riage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” CAL.

CONST. art. I, § 7.5. Although the case concerns a question of law that can be an-

swered solely by resort to controlling precedent and, if necessary, legislative facts,

the district court has ordered a full-scale, multi-week trial. Dozens of witnesses are

expected to testify on a range of topics related to the divisive issues of same-sex

marriage and sexual orientation in general. Yesterday, the district court formally

notified the parties that, subject to the approval of the Chief Judge of the Ninth

Circuit, the trial would be broadcast daily on YouTube several hours after the

completion of the day’s proceedings. See Notice to Parties (Jan. 7, 2010) (Ex. 1);

Tr. of Hr’g of Jan. 6, 2010 (Ex. 2) at 6, 46. Although there is no record that Chief

-1-
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page14 of 48

Judge Kozinski has yet acted, Petitioners feel compelled to seek relief now to af-

ford this Court adequate time to rule before the trial begins Monday morning.1

The district court’s order is contrary to the long-established policy of the Ju-

dicial Conference of the United States—as well as the policies of both the Northern

District of California and the Ninth Circuit in effect at least until late December

2009. The district court issued the order pursuant to (i) a purported revision, made

on the eve of trial, to the district court’s Local Rule 77-3, which had previously

prohibited public broadcast, and (ii) a press release by the Ninth Circuit Judicial

Council announcing a “pilot program” permitting broadcasting of district court

proceedings within the Circuit. Both policies appear to have been changed with

great haste solely to ensure that this case would be publicly broadcast.

Congress has mandated that the public be afforded notice and the opportu-

nity to comment before a district court revises a local rule or a circuit judicial

council revises a practice or procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 2071(b) & (c)(1); 28

U.S.C. § 332(d). Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council’s announcement

failed entirely to comply with this statutory mandate, while the Northern District

first offered a belated, truncated opportunity to comment that foreclosed meaning-

ful consideration of the public’s views and then at the last minute shifted its ration-

ale in an attempt to take refuge in a statutory exception for rule changes prompted

1
Petitioners are simultaneously moving the district court to stay its order
pending disposition of this petition.

-2-
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page15 of 48

by an “immediate need.” Neither process produced carefully considered or de-

tailed guidelines about how a pilot program allowing public broadcast will operate

or how it will address the many serious concerns this practice raises.

The questions of whether and how to publicly broadcast trial proceedings are

weighty and have for years been the subject of study, debate, proposed legislation,

and testimony from dozens of federal judges, including the justices of the Supreme

Court. For fifteen years the Judicial Conference of the United States has “consis-

tently” and repeatedly voiced its strong opposition because “camera coverage can

do irreparable harm to a citizen’s right to a fair and impartial trial.” Cameras in

the Courtroom: Hr’g Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (Nov. 9,

2005) (statement of Hon. Diarmuid O’Scannlain for the Judicial Conference of the

United States) (Ex. 3) (“Testimony of Judge O’Scannlain”) at 40; see also, e.g.,

Letter from James C. Duff (July 23, 2009) (Ex. 4) (“Duff Letter”) at 2.

Here, the district court, because it has before it a high-profile case, has de-

cided to short-circuit the national debate on this issue, to change its controlling

rules in a matter of days through a process that violates the letter and spirit of the

law, and to broadcast on YouTube a trial that has the potential to become a media

circus. It has done so without addressing the many concerns cited by the Judicial

Conference and the parties in this case.

-3-
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page16 of 48

Indeed, the specific concerns underlying the Judicial Conference’s firm op-

position are present in spades here. The record is already replete with evidence

showing that any publicizing of support for Prop 8 has inevitably led to harass-

ment, economic reprisal, threats, and even physical violence. In this atmosphere,

witnesses are understandably quite distressed at the prospect of their testimony be-

ing broadcast worldwide on YouTube. Whatever truth there may be to the notion

that televising trials will better educate the public about the federal judiciary, “in-

creased public education cannot be allowed to interfere with the judiciary’s pri-

mary mission, which is to administer fair and impartial justice to individual liti-

gants in individual cases.” Testimony of Judge O’Scannlain, Ex. 3 at 48.

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether the district court may broadcast the trial beyond the courthouse.

STATEMENT

Petitioners, a “primarily formed ballot committee” and the “official propo-

nents” of Prop 8 (“Proponents”), intervened to defend the amendment to Califor-

nia’s constitution because the State declined to do so. When they intervened in

June 2009, the long-standing policy of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council flatly

prohibited public broadcast of district court proceedings. See Resolution of the

-4-
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page17 of 48

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference (July 2007) (Ex. 5). Likewise, the Northern Dis-

trict of California’s Local Rule 77-3 stated that “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, is prohibited.” See Ex. 6; see

also N.D. Cal. Gen. Order No. 58 (Ex. 7), ¶ III (adopting Judicial Conference’s

policy against broadcasting district court proceedings).

The Judicial Conference of the United States adopted its current policy in

1996. See JCUS-SEP 96, p. 54, available at www.uscourts.gov/judconf/96-

Sep.pdf. The policy is based upon the potentially negative impact that the public

broadcast of trial court proceedings could have on the administration of justice.

After an extensive, multi-year study of the issue by the Federal Judicial Center

(“FJC”), the Judicial Conference, in 1994, rejected proposals for public broadcast

of trial court proceedings. See JCUS-SEP 94, pp. 46-47, available at

www.uscourts.gov/judconf/94-Sep.pdf. “Based upon the data presented, a major-

ity of the Conference concluded that the intimidating effect of cameras on some

witnesses and jurors was cause for concern, and the Conference declined to … to

expand camera coverage in civil proceedings.” Id.

In July 2007, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference adopted a resolution rec-

ommending that the Judicial Conference of the United States change its policy to

permit the broadcast of civil, non-jury trials. See Ex. 6. The Ninth Circuit Judicial

-5-
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page18 of 48

Conference also recommended that, “to the extent permitted by Judicial Confer-

ence [of the United States] procedures, this Circuit should adopt a Rule that would

allow the photographing, recording, and broadcasting of non-jury, civil proceed-

ings before the District Courts in the Ninth Circuit.” Id.

Despite these recommendations, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council took no

action for nearly two years. In the interim, “[t]he Ninth Circuit Judicial Council

considered the resolution at a number of meetings following the 2007 Judicial

Conference but deferred action to await possible developments at the national lev-

el.” Letter from Cathy A. Catterson (May 7, 2009) (Ex. 8). Finally, in May 2009,

for reasons left unstated, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council decided “that it is ap-

propriate to forward [to the United States Judicial Conference] the [2007] resolu-

tion now and ask that it [be] considered by [the Committee on Court Administra-

tion and Case Management] at its June meeting.” Id.

The Judicial Conference of the United States has not retreated from its pol-

icy against the broadcast of district court proceedings. Indeed, as recently as July

2009 the Judicial Conference forcefully reiterated to Congress its concern that

broadcasting would interfere with a fair trial. The Judicial Conference empha-

sized, inter alia, its considered judgment that “[t]elevision cameras can intimidate

litigants, witnesses, and jurors, many of whom have no direct connection to the

proceeding and are involved in it through no action of their own. Witnesses might

-6-
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page19 of 48

refuse to testify or alter their stories when they do testify if they fear retribution by

someone who may be watching the broadcast.” Duff Letter (Ex. 4) at 2.

On September 25, 2009, despite the local and national policies barring pub-

lic broadcast of proceedings in the Northern District, the district court informed the

parties that it had received inquiries about publicly broadcasting the trial and asked

the parties for their position. Tr. of Hr’g of Sept. 25, 2009 (Ex. 9) at 70. The court

acknowledged that “[t]here are, of course, Judicial Conference positions on this,”

but stated that “[t]his is all in flux.” Id. at 72. Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenors, and

the Attorney General (all of whom seek invalidation of Prop 8) stated their support

for publicly broadcasting the trial. See Doc. No. 215 (Ex.10). Proponents op-

posed, explaining that it would violate the United States Judicial Conference’s pol-

icy and would threaten the fairness of the trial. See Doc. No. 218 (Ex. 11).

Neither the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, nor the Northern District as a

whole, nor the trial court in this case took any further public action with regard to

this issue between September 25 and December 16, the date of the final pretrial

conference. However, the presiding judge later informed the parties (on the eve of

trial) that he sat on a Judicial Council committee of three judges created by Chief

Judge Kozinski on October 22 “to evaluate the possibility of adopting a Ninth Cir-

cuit rule” regarding broadcast of district court proceedings, and he acknowledged

that this “case was very much in mind at that time because it had come to promi-

-7-
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page20 of 48

nence then and was thought to be an ideal candidate for consideration.” Tr. of

Hr’g of Jan. 6, 2009 (Ex. 2) at 43. Neither the parties nor the public received any

notice or opportunity to comment on this proposed policy change.

At the final pre-trial conference, the court announced that although public

broadcast was “not permitted” under “current Ninth Circuit policy and rules” or the

Northern District’s local rules, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council was considering

implementation of a pilot program permitting broadcast of nonjury civil cases. Tr.

of Hr’g of Dec. 16, 2009, at 10 (Ex. 12). The court explained that its “understand-

ing [was] that a proposal to implement that is pending before the Judicial Council

of the Ninth Circuit, and may very well be enacted in the very near future,” though

the court did not yet “have a green light for it.” Id.

The next day, December 17, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council issued a

“News Release” announcing it “ha[d] approved, on an experimental basis, the lim-

ited use of cameras in federal district courts within the circuit.” See Ex. 13. The

press release provided no details as to how the pilot program would be imple-

mented other than that “[c]ases to be considered for the pilot program will be se-

lected by the chief judge of the district court in consultation with the chief circuit

judge.” Id. No Circuit rule or order permitting the broadcast of trials has been no-

ticed, opened for public comment, or promulgated, nor has the Judicial Council is-

sued any policies or procedures to govern the pilot program.

-8-
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page21 of 48

On December 21, a coalition of media companies (the “Media Coalition”)

sought leave to televise the trial. Doc. No. 313. On December 23, the Northern

District of California posted on its website “public notice” that the court “has ap-

proved a revision of Civil Local Rule 77-3, effective December 22, 2009.” See Ex.

14 (screenshot of the webpage on Dec. 29, 2009). The purported amendment

carved out an exception to the ban on public broadcasting of proceedings, authoriz-

ing “a Judge or a Magistrate Judge with respect to his or her own chambers or as-

signed courtroom” to allow “the taking of photographs, public broadcasting or te-

levising, or recording for [the] purpose[]” of “participation in a pilot or other pro-

ject authorized by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit.” Id.

On December 28 and 29, Proponents opposed the Media Coalition’s request,

explaining that any change in Ninth Circuit policy or local rules regarding broad-

cast of district court proceedings would require a sufficient public notice and

comment period. Doc. Nos. 324, 326 (Exs. 15 & 16). Proponents reiterated that

this case implicates the precise concerns that animated the Judicial Conference’s

policy against broadcast of district court proceedings. Doc. No. 324 at 6-7.

On December 30, the district court set a hearing for January 6, 2010, on the

issue of broadcasting the trial. Later that day, the court informed the parties that

“in light of the recent change to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council’s policy regard-

ing cameras in district courts and the subsequent amendment of Civil LR 77-3 to

-9-
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page22 of 48

conform with Ninth Circuit policy, the court is considering seeking approval from

Chief Judge Kozinski to record or webcast the January 6 hearing.” Doc. 332 at 2.

The court ordered that any objections be filed by January 4. Id.

In the late afternoon on New Year’s Eve, the Northern District removed

from its website the posting announcing that it had “approved a revision of Civil

Local Rule 77-3, effective December 22, 2009.” In its place, the court put up an

announcement of a “proposed revision of Civil Local Rule 77-3,” which it had

“approved for public comment.” Ex. 17 (emphasis added). Any comments were

to be submitted by today, January 8, 2010. Id.

On January 4, 2010, Proponents objected to public broadcast of the January

6 hearing for the reasons previously stated. Doc. No. 336 (Ex. 18). Proponents al-

so explained that pursuant to the court’s New Year’s Eve announcement, it no

longer appeared that the purported amendment to Local Rule 77-3 was operative.

Id.

Later on January 4, the Northern District removed from its website the post-

ing announcing the “proposed” revision of Rule 77-3 and replaced it with a notice

announcing that the court had approved the revision “effective December 22,

2009.” Ex 19. The notice further stated that “[t]he revised rule was adopted pur-

suant to the ‘immediate need’ provision of Title 28 Section 2071(e).” Id.

- 10 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page23 of 48

On January 6, the court held a hearing that was recorded on video over Pro-

ponents’ objections, for later posting on YouTube. See

www.youtube.com/usdccand. The court announced that the live broadcast of the

trial would go not only to the overflow courtroom in the courthouse, but also to

this Court’s San Francisco courthouse and courthouses in Seattle, Portland, Pasa-

dena, and Chicago. Tr. of Hr’g of Jan. 6, 2009 (Ex. 2) at 16-17. The court further

ruled that this case was appropriate for public broadcast and held that if Chief

Judge Kozinski approved, the trial would be recorded and broadcast beginning

Monday January 11, 2010. Id. at 46. A court technician explained to the parties

that proceedings would be recorded using three cameras and the resulting broad-

cast would then be uploaded for posting on YouTube, with a delay due to the web-

site’s processing requirements. Id. at 4, 6.

ARGUMENT

Five “guidelines aid this Court’s determination of whether mandamus relief

is appropriate in a given case: (1) whether the petitioner has no other means, such

as an appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be dam-

aged or prejudiced in any way not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the district

court order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the district court’s

order is an oft repeated error or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules;

and (5) whether the district court’s order raises new and important problems or is-

- 11 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page24 of 48

sues of first impression.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 09-17241, slip op. at 15-

16 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2010) (citing Bauman v. United States Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650

(9th Cir. 1977)). “Satisfaction of all five … is not required,” Admiral Ins. Co. v.

U.S. Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1491 (9th Cir. 1989); indeed, “it is unlikely that all

of the guidelines will be met in any one case, and the decision often requires bal-

ancing of conflicting factors,” Star Editorial, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 7 F.3d

856, 859 (9th Cir. 1993). Moreover, where the Court is exercising its supervisory

or advisory mandamus authority, rigid adherence to these guidelines is not re-

quired. In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 688 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1982).

I. Absent Mandamus, No Other Means of Review Is Available.

Appeal following an already televised trial cannot remedy the harm flowing

from the broadcast. Many of the likely adverse effects of broadcasting this trial—

harassment of witnesses, threats to the safety and security of trial participants, un-

necessary public exposure and ridicule of trial participants—cannot be corrected

on appeal. As Judge O’Scannlain explained to Congress in 2005 on behalf of the

Judicial Conference, “camera coverage can do irreparable harm to a citizen’s right

to a fair and impartial trial.” Ex. 3 at 40 (emphasis added).

Moreover, when, as here, the Court is called upon to exercise its “supervi-

sory authority to insure the proper and orderly administration of the federal judicial

system,” the Court is “concerned with far more than the injury to the[] particular

- 12 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page25 of 48

petitioners; [it is also] concerned … with the effect of the challenged order on the

operation of the courts.” Cement Antitrust, 688 F.2d at 1299, 1303. Thus, “as long

as petitioners have demonstrated that they will suffer an actual injury not correct-

able on appeal, they have satisfied … the injury requirement.” Id.

The First Circuit recently reaffirmed this insight, exercising its mandamus

jurisdiction to address the very same issue raised here: public broadcast of trial

court proceedings. See In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 564 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.

2009). The Sony court explained that immediate review through mandamus was

appropriate because the issue was “systemically important and rife with implica-

tions for the public interest” and thus merited “prompt and authoritative resolu-

tion.” Id. at 4. The same, of course, is true here. See Allowing Cameras and Elec-

tronic Media in the Courtroom, Hr’g Before the S. Judiciary Comm. (Sept. 6,

2000) (statement of Hon. Edward R. Becker for the Judicial Conference of the

United States) (“Testimony of Judge Becker”) (Ex. 21) at 1 (“The Judicial Confer-

ence maintains that camera coverage would have a notably adverse effect on court

proceedings.”).

II. Proponents Will Be Irreparably Harmed Absent Immediate Review.

As noted above, “decades of experience and study,” including the FJC study

of a multi-year, multi-district pilot program, have demonstrated a variety of harms

that arise from public broadcast of district court proceedings, leading the Judicial

- 13 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page26 of 48

Conference of the United States to “consistently” conclude “that camera coverage

can do irreparable harm to a citizen’s right to a fair and impartial trial.” Testimony

of Judge O’Scannlain (Ex. 3) at 40; Duff Letter (Ex. 4) at 1.2

(i) Effect on Witnesses. The Supreme Court has long recognized that “[t]he

impact upon a witness of the knowledge that he is being viewed by a vast audience

is simply incalculable.” Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 547 (1965). The Estes

Court concisely summarized many of the potential adverse effects on witnesses:

Some may be demoralized and frightened, some cocky and given to

overstatement; memories may falter, as with anyone speaking pub-
licly, and accuracy of statement may be severely undermined. Em-
barrassment may impede the search for the truth, as may a natural ten-
dency toward overdramatization. Furthermore, inquisitive strangers
and “cranks” might approach witnesses on the street with jibes, ad-
vice or demands for explanation of testimony. There is little wonder
that the defendant cannot “prove” the existence of such factors. Yet
we all know from experience that they exist.

Id.; see also id. at 591 (Harlan, J., concurring).

2
See also Cameras in the Courtroom, The “Sunshine in the Courtroom Act
of 2007,” H.R. 2128, Hr’g Before the H. Judiciary Comm. (Sept. 27, 2007) (state-
ment of Hon. John R. Tunheim for the Judicial Conference of the United States)
(“camera coverage can do irreparable harm to a citizen’s right to a fair and impar-
tial trial”) (Ex. 20); Testimony of Judge Becker (Ex. 21) (public broadcast of dis-
trict court proceedings “can result in real and irreparable harm”). The United
States Department of Justice—the federal courts’ most frequent litigant—also op-
poses broadcasting district court proceedings. See, e.g., Cameras in the Court-
room, The “Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007,” Hr. 2128, Hr’g Before the H.
Judiciary Comm. (Sept. 27, 2007) (statement of John C. Richter for the Dep’t of
Justice) (Ex. 22).

- 14 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page27 of 48

Although Estes involved a criminal trial, the Judicial Conference of the

United States has recognized that its insights apply equally to civil proceedings.

The FJC study of its three-year pilot program found, inter alia, that “64 percent of

the participating trial judges and 40 percent of the participating attorneys reported

that at least to some extent cameras make witnesses more nervous than they other-

wise would be” and that “46 percent of the trial judges believed that at least to

some extent cameras make witnesses less willing to appear in court.” Testimony

of Judge Becker (Ex. 21) at 1-2. Based on these results, the Judicial Conference

has repeatedly and consistently concluded that a witness “will often act differently

when he or she knows, or even believes that thousands of people are watching and

listening to the story.” Id.; see also Duff Ltr. (Ex. 4) at 2 (“the presence of cameras

in a trial court will encourage some participants to become more dramatic, to pon-

tificate about their personal views, to promote commercial interests to a national

audience, or to lengthen their appearance on camera”).

Most troubling, public broadcast “can intimidate … witnesses,” who might

“refuse to testify or alter their stories when they do testify if they fear retribution

by someone who may be watching the broadcast.” Duff Letter (Ex. 4) at 2; see al-

so Estes, 381 U.S. at 591 (Harlan, J., concurring) (“there is certainly a strong pos-

sibility that the timid or reluctant witness, for whom a court appearance even at its

traditional best is a harrowing affair, will become more timid or reluctant when he

- 15 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page28 of 48

finds that he will also be appearing before a ‘hidden audience’ of unknown but

large dimensions”); Testimony of Judge O’Scannlain (Ex. 3) at 44. Further, the

Judicial Conference has found these “disquieting” insights likely to be far more

pervasive and problematic in “truly high-profile cases,” like this one. Testimony

of Judge Becker (Ex. 21).3

Plaintiffs contended below that any concerns a particular witness might have

can be addressed by the district court’s discretion to bar public broadcast of spe-

cific testimony or “control the format and timing of all broadcast transmissions.”

Doc. 327 at 3. This argument fails for several reasons. First, any control the judge

exercises over the format and timing of the broadcast is illusory, for once the video

is released, it could easily be altered and disseminated widely by those with modest

technical skill and an agenda. Second, barring public broadcast of a particular wit-

ness, or blurring his or her face or voice, only serves to shine an even brighter spot-

light on that particular witness. As Judge Becker observed on behalf of the Judi-

cial Conference, “[p]roviding [a witness] with the choice whether to testify in the

open or blur their image and voice would be cold comfort indeed.” Ex. 21 at 2.

Third, Plaintiffs’ contention ignores that the effect of public broadcast is a two-

edged sword: some witnesses will shy away from cameras, others will crave the

3
The Judicial Conference has also repeatedly expressed concerns about the
effect of public broadcast on witness privacy. See Testimony of Judge
O’Scannlain (Ex. 3) at 54-55; Testimony of Judge Becker (Ex. 21) at 8-9; Duff
Letter (Ex. 4) at 2.

- 16 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page29 of 48

spotlight and shade their testimony for dramatic effect. A trial judge cannot de-

termine in advance whether a witness will fall into this latter category. Finally,

Judge Becker explained that a district court’s discretion is no certain salve for the

wounds of public broadcast, for they often arise unexpectedly. “Federal judges are

not clairvoyants”; one never knows “what is going to happen in a trial.” Id.

In this case, these concerns are not just hypothetical. All of Proponents’ wit-

nesses have expressed concern over the potential public broadcast of trial proceed-

ings, and some have stated that they will refuse to testify if the district court goes

forward with its plan. Their distress is not unreasonable, as the record reflects re-

peated harassment of Prop 8 supporters. See Doc. Nos. 187-1; 187-2 at ¶¶ 10-12;

187-9 at ¶¶ 6-8; 187-9 at 12-15; 187-11; 187-12 at ¶¶ 5-6; 187-13 at ¶ 8; see also

Thomas M. Messner, The Price of Prop 8, available at www.heritage.org/

Research/Family/bg2328.cfm; www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcKJEHrvwDI (do-

cumenting instance of harassment). This campaign of harassment and reprisal has

often been “targeted and coordinated,” Messner, supra, and the retaliation has of-

ten been quite serious. See, e.g., Doc No. 187-11 at 81 (Brad Stone, Disclosure,

Magnified on the Web, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 8, 2009) (“Some donors to groups sup-

porting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a pow-

dery white substance ….”). Broadcasting the trial would vastly increase the likeli-

hood that trial participants would face similar experiences.

- 17 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page30 of 48

Broadcasting this trial would also impinge upon the privacy interests of wit-

nesses, “some of whom are only tangentially related to the case, but about whom

very personal and identifying information might be revealed.” Duff Letter (Ex. 4)

at 2. Already, one website “takes the names and ZIP codes of people who donated

to the ballot measure … and overlays the data on a Google map.” Doc No. 187-11

at 81. Another website published the name, hometown, home phone numbers,

workplace, workplace contact information, and pictures of Prop 8 supporters so

that “whenever someone Googles them this [website] will come up.” Id. at 55, 62,

65-66, 73, 77.

(ii) Effect on Attorneys. The FJC study revealed that “twenty-seven percent

of the attorneys reported that the cameras distracted them.” Testimony of Judge

Becker (Ex. 21) at 2. And “[f]ifty-six percent of the appellate judges found that, to

some extent or greater, cameras cause attorneys to change the emphasis or content

of their oral arguments.” Id. Many judges also concluded that “cameras caused

attorneys to be more theatrical in their presentations.” Id. As Judge O’Scannlain

explained to Congress, “[c]ameras provide a very strong temptation for … attor-

neys … to try their cases in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of

law.” Ex. 3 at 52; see also Duff Letter (Ex. 4) at 2.

(iii) Effect on Judges. The Judicial Conference has also cited “disturbing re-

ports about the effect of … cameras on judges,” with “[n]ine percent of … trial

- 18 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page31 of 48

judges report[ing] that at least to some extent the cameras caused judges to avoid

unpopular decisions or positions.” Testimony of Judge Becker (Ex. 21) at 2. And

“34 percent [of appellate judges] reported that at least to some extent cameras

cause judges to change the emphasis or content of their questions at oral argu-

ment.” Id. And these are judges who self-reported their views.

(iv) Security Concerns. The Judicial Conference has repeatedly stressed:

[T]he presence of cameras in a trial courtroom … increases security

and safety issues. Broadcasting the images of judges and court em-
ployees, such as court reporters, courtroom deputies, and law clerks,
makes them more easily identified as targets by those who would at-
tempt to influence the outcome of the matter or exact retribution for
an unpopular court ruling. Threats against judges, lawyers, and other
participants could increase even beyond the current disturbing level.
Cameras create similar security concerns for law enforcement per-
sonnel present in the courtroom, including U.S. marshals and U.S. at-
torneys and their staffs.

Duff Letter (Ex. 4) at 3; see also Testimony of Judge O’Scannlain (Ex. 3) at 52-53.

Security is particularly important today, as annual “[t]hreats against federal judges,

U.S. Attorneys, Assistant U.S. Attorneys ..., and other court officials ... have more

than doubled during the past several years, increasing from 592 in fiscal year (FY)

2003 to 1,278 in FY 2008.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Inspector General,

Review of the Protection of the Judiciary and the United States Attorneys (Ex. 23)

at 1 (Dec. 2009).

* * *

- 19 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page32 of 48

Finally, as Judge Becker explained, all of these concerns arose just from a

study of low-profile cases. He warned that in “truly high-profile cases” one can

“[j]ust imagine what the findings would be.” Ex. 21 at 2.

Plaintiffs discount all of the Judicial Conference’s concerns, claiming that

the First Amendment grants a right to public broadcast of this trial. See Doc Nos.

327, 334. This contention is without foundation. As Judge O’Scannlain explained,

“increased public education cannot be allowed to interfere with the judiciary’s

primary mission, which is to administer fair and impartial justice to individual liti-

gants in individual cases.” Ex. 3 at 48. And “today, as in the past, federal court

proceedings are open to the public; however, nothing in the First Amendment re-

quires televised trials.” Id. at 57. Judge O’Scannlain noted that Estes, Westmore-

land v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 752 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1984), and Unit-

ed States v. Edwards, 785 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1986), all “forcefully make the point

that, while all trials are public, there is no constitutional right of media to broadcast

federal district court or appellate court proceedings.” Id. at 57-59. And just last

year, the First Circuit rebuffed this very argument when made by broadcasters in

another case that elicited significant public interest. See Sony, 564 F.3d at 8-9

(“the venerable right of members of the public to attend federal court proceedings

is far removed from an imagined entitlement to view court proceedings remotely

on a computer screen”).

- 20 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page33 of 48

III. The District Court Clearly Erred as a Matter of Law.

At the December 16, 2009, pretrial conference, the district court correctly

acknowledged that it lacked authority to permit public broadcast of the trial in this

case. See Tr. of Hr’g of Dec. 16, 2009 (Ex. 12) at 10. Local Rule 77-3 unambigu-

ously prohibited it, as did the policy of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council and the

Judicial Conference of the United States. Local Rule 77-3 “has the force of law,”

Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929), and therefore bound the trial court. See,

e.g., United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 747 F.2d 111, 112 (2d Cir. 1984) (dis-

trict judge bound by local rule prohibiting recording of proceedings); United States

v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1279 nn.4-5 (11th Cir. 1983) (same).

In similar circumstances, the First Circuit recently issued a writ of manda-

mus overturning an order permitting a webcast of a trial. See Sony, 564 F.3d 1.

Although a local rule barred the broadcast, see id. at 10, the trial court had sought

to read into the rule discretionary authority to allow it. Declaring that “the Judicial

Conference’s unequivocal stance against the broadcasting of civil proceedings …

is entitled to substantial weight,” the First Circuit held the trial court lacked discre-

tion to broadcast the trial. Id. at 7. The court of appeals emphasized “ ‘that the in-

timidating effect of cameras’ in the courtroom presented ‘cause for concern.’ ” Id.;

see also In re Complaint Against District Judge Billy Joe McDade, No. 07-09-

90083 (7th Cir. Sept. 28, 2009) (Easterbrook, C.J.) (district judge “engaged in con-

- 21 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page34 of 48

duct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of

the courts” by permitting broadcast of civil trial contrary to local rule and policies

of Judicial Conference and Seventh Circuit Judicial Council).

The district court thus rests its order permitting public broadcast of the up-

coming trial entirely upon the revision to Local Rule 77-3 promulgated on January

4 and the Circuit Judicial Council’s December 17 press release announcing the pi-

lot program. But neither policy change was made with statutorily required public

notice and opportunity for comment and thus neither authorized the district court’s

order. Moreover, the district court’s order violates Proponents’ due process rights.

A. The Purported Revision of Local Rule 77-3

Federal district courts have the power to promulgate local rules and to

amend those rules, but “[a]ny rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme

Court, … shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an op-

portunity for comment.” 28 U.S.C. § 2071(b); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 83(a)(1)

(district court may amend rules only “[a]fter giving public notice and an opportu-

nity for comment”); N.D. Cal L.R. 83-3(a) (“Before becoming effective, any pro-

posed substantive modification of the local rules shall be subject to public com-

ment ….”); United States v. Hernandez, 251 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2001).4

4
Before prescribing a local rule, a district court must also “appoint an advi-
sory committee for the study of the rules of practice … of such court.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2077(b); see also Local Rule 83-1 (“Any proposed substantive modification or

- 22 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page35 of 48

On December 23, 2009, the Northern District announced on its website that

it had revised Local Rule 77-3, effective December 22. See Ex. 14; Doc. No. 332

(order of Dec. 30, 2009) (recognizing the “recent … amendment of Civil LR 77-

3”). However, after Proponents objected to the lack of prior public notice and op-

portunity for comment, see Doc. Nos. 324, 326, the district court, late in the day on

New Year’s Eve, removed from its website the notice of the completed revision

and substituted a notice of “proposed” revision. Exs. 15 & 16. The notice stated

that a comment period would be open through Friday, January 8, 2010—a total of

five business days following the New Year’s holiday weekend for interested per-

sons to submit comments on the proposed revision to Local Rule 77-3.

On January 4, 2010, the district court again revised its posting, this time re-

moving the “proposed” revision to Local Rule 77-3 and substituting a notice stat-

ing that the revision had been “adopted” effective December 22, 2009. See Ex. 19.

The notice stated that the “[t]he revised rule was adopted pursuant to the ‘immedi-

ate need’ provision of Title 28 Section 2071(e).” Id.

This haphazard process does not come close to satisfying the statutory re-

quirement of appropriate advance public notice and an opportunity for comment.

Cf. Miner v. Atlass, 363 U.S. 641, 650 (1960) (procedure for promulgating federal

civil rules is “designed to insure that basic procedural innovations shall be intro-

amendment of these local rules must be submitted to a Local Rules Advisory

Committee for its review ….”).

- 23 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page36 of 48

duced only after mature consideration of informed opinion from all relevant quar-

ters, with all the opportunities for comprehensive and integrated treatment which

such consideration affords”). Courts ordinarily allow at least 30 days for comment

on a proposed local rule.5 That conforms to the agency practice under the Admin-

istrative Procedure Act, which was intended to guide judicial rulemaking. See

Notes of Advisory Committee on 1985 Amendments to FED. R. CIV. P. 83. Agen-

cies “usually” provide a comment period of “thirty days or more.” Riverbend

Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 1484 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Petry v.

Block, 737 F.2d 1193, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Administrative Conference suggests

60 days, and concludes that “the shortest period in which parties can meaningfully

review a proposed rule and file informed responses is thirty days”) (quotation

marks omitted).

The five business days commencing on New Year’s Eve afforded by the

Northern District for comment was therefore patently inadequate—especially for

an issue that the Judiciary and Congress have spent years debating. It is doubtful

that many interested persons will have become aware of the New Year’s Eve no-

tice before the comment period expires today. And given the haste and determina-

tion with which the district court has sought to revise the local rule—an effort that,

5
See, e.g., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Opportunity
for Comment – Rules Governing Judicial Misconduct Complaints (Dec. 21, 2009)
(30-day comment period) (Ex. 24).

- 24 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page37 of 48

as discussed below, reached its zenith when the court implemented the revision

even before the truncated comment period had ended—it appears no serious con-

sideration would have been or will be given to the views of the commenters who

manage to meet the deadline. Especially given the seismic shift in policy effected

by the revision—contravening the long-established policy of the Judicial Confer-

ence of the United States based on the fear that broadcasting would deprive liti-

gants of a fair trial (which policy is “at the very least entitled to respectful consid-

eration,” Sony, 564 F.3d at 6)—this process was woefully inadequate.

A local rule adopted without appropriate notice and a meaningful opportu-

nity for comment is invalid and unenforceable. United States v. Terry, 11 F.3d

at110, 113 (9th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Klubock, 832 F.2d 664, 671-

75 (1st Cir. 1987) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (local rule “is too important, its ramifica-

tions too complex, its contours too uncertain” to be adopted without “ ‘appropriate

public notice and an opportunity to comment’ ”).

Finally, the district court’s last-minute invocation of the “immediate need”

exception to the notice and comment mandate, see 28 U.S.C. § 2071(e), does not

save the revision. There is little case law applying the § 2071(e) “immediate need”

exception, cf. United States v. Carr, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74757, at *3-7 (E.D.

Cal. 2006) (invoking § 2071(e) “immediate need” exception to promulgate rule re-

quiring criminal defendants to be fully shackled at initial appearances in light of

- 25 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page38 of 48

recent history of threats against judges and other court personnel and participants),

but the APA again provides useful guidance. An agency may dispense with the

comment period “when [it] for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and

a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public pro-

cedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B). Courts “construe” the APA’s exception “narrowly”; “notice

and comment procedures should be waived only when delay would do real harm.”

NRDC v. Evans, 316 F.3d 904, 911 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted).

The district court failed to provide any statement of its reasons for invoking

the immediate-need exception here. The Circuit Judicial Council took two years to

act on its 2007 resolution in favor of allowing cameras in district courtrooms, and

none of the other fourteen district courts in this Circuit has yet taken any public ac-

tion to implement the pilot program. As the timeline of events detailed above sug-

gests, the only conceivable “immediate need” was to amend the local rule in time

to publicly broadcast this case. In reality, this is not an instance in which a particu-

lar case has been selected for televising under a pilot program; it is an instance of a

pilot program being created for televising a particular case. No harm could result

from delaying the amendment in order to receive and consider comments. The

court has an unending stream of cases from which to find a suitable guinea pig.

Certainly, such delay would not preclude the court from “execut[ing] its … du-

- 26 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page39 of 48

ties.” NRDC, 316 F.3d at 911. On the contrary, as explained above, the district

court’s precipitate amendment of Local Rule 77-3 so that it could broadcast this

controversial case threatens to harm Defendant-Intervenors by interfering with “the

judiciary’s primary mission, which is to administer fair and impartial justice to in-

dividual litigants in individual cases.” Testimony of Judge O’Scannlain, Ex. 3 at

48.

B. Ninth Circuit Judicial Council Policy

Even if the revision to Local Rule 77-3 were otherwise valid, it could not au-

thorize the public broadcast of district court proceedings because the Ninth Circuit

Judicial Council has not validly authorized such broadcasts as yet. The court be-

low clearly erred by concluding that the December 17 press release constituted a

valid revision of Judicial Council policy.

Congress has authorized the Council to “make all necessary and appropriate

orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within” the Ninth

Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1). But “[a]ny general order relating to practice and

procedure shall be made or amended only after giving appropriate public notice

and an opportunity for comment.” Id. (emphasis added). This notice and comment

procedure is a “check” placed by Congress on “the delegation of power to [the

Council] under § 332(d)(1).” Russell v. Hug, 275 F.3d 812, 818 (9th Cir. 2002).

- 27 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page40 of 48

Other than the December 17 press release announcing the Council’s vote in

favor of a pilot program permitting public broadcast, the Council has not issued

anything formally revising its 1996 policy prohibiting the public broadcast of civil

trials—no general order, rule, or other official statement of policy. Standing alone,

the Circuit Council’s vote and subsequent press release do not represent a valid

amendment of the 1996 policy and that policy remains in effect.

The invalidity of the Council’s action renders the district court’s order inva-

lid, for it means that the 1996 Judicial Council policy remains in place and is bind-

ing on the trial court. This Court can correct the error through exercise of its man-

damus jurisdiction. See In re McBryde, 117 F.3d 208, 221-22 (5th Cir. 1997); In

re Imperial “400” Nat’l, Inc., 481 F.2d 41, 42 (3d Cir. 1973). Moreover, the inva-

lidity of the Council’s purported revision also renders the district court’s order in-

valid under the direct terms of revised Local Rule 77-3 (assuming arguendo that

the revision was valid). If the Council has not validly launched a pilot or other

program, then the new exception in revised Local Rule 77-3 does not apply.

C. The Lack of Guidelines Governing the Pilot Program

In light of the significant concerns raised by the Judicial Conference regard-

ing public broadcast of district court proceedings and the lengthy guidelines that

govern broadcast of Ninth Circuit proceedings, it is highly problematic that neither

the Northern District nor the Circuit Judicial Council has promulgated or even no-

- 28 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page41 of 48

ticed any rules or guidelines to govern the pilot program. See Estes, 381 U.S. at

537, 551 (holding that public broadcast of a trial violated due process where “the

rules governing live telecasting … were changed as the exigencies of the situation

seemed to require” and the “day-to-day orders made the trial more confusing to …

the participants”). Even if the per se objections to public broadcast are to be ig-

nored, such guidelines are needed to regulate the trial court’s discretion in selecting

cases for broadcast and placing restrictions on broadcasts. At a minimum, such

regulations should provide that public broadcast should be permitted only if all

parties and all witnesses consent.

D. Public Broadcast of the Trial in This Case Would

Violate Proponents’ Due Process Right to a Fair Trial.

Public broadcast of this trial would violate Proponents’ due process right to

a fair trial. In Estes, the Supreme Court held that “the atmosphere essential to the

preservation of a fair trial—the most fundamental of all freedoms—must be main-

tained at all costs.” 381 U.S. at 540.6 There, the Court found public broadcast of a

trial violated “the basic requirement of due process”—a “fair trial”—because, inter

alia, public broadcast might have (i) “impaired” the “quality of the testimony,” (ii)

affected the responsibilities and demeanor of the judge, and (iii) created “mental—

if not physical—harassment” of the defendant. Id. at 543, 547, 549 (quotation

6
Estes involved a criminal trial, but civil litigants have no less of a Fifth
Amendment due process right to a fair trial. See, e.g., Jinro Am., Inc. v. Secure
Inv., Inc., 266 F.3d 993, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001).

- 29 -
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page42 of 48

marks omitted). In this high-profile, highly contentious case, the potential for all

these harms and many more is great. Thus, Proponents respectfully submit that in

the specific circumstances presented here, public broadcast would violate their due

process rights to a fair and impartial trial.7

IV. The Question Presented Is One of First Impression but Is

Capable of Creating a Persistent Disregard of the Federal Rules.

The district court’s broadcast order clearly presents “new and important

[questions] of first impression.” Perry, slip op. at 16. The fifth Bauman factor is

thus satisfied. The fourth Bauman factor—whether the district court’s order is an

oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules—need

not, and usually cannot, be met where the fifth factor is present. Admiral, 881 F.2d

at 1491. The order is nonetheless capable of creating such disregard.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should issue a writ of mandamus or

prohibition barring the district court from broadcasting the trial in this case. To the

extent the Court requires additional time to consider the merits of this Petition, we

respectfully request that it issue a temporary stay to prevent the broadcast of trial

proceedings on Monday, January 11.

7
In Chandler v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that Estes did not an-
nounce a per se due process ban on public broadcast, but left open an as-applied
due process challenge in an appropriate case. 449 U.S. 560, 573, 582 (1981).

- 30 -
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page43 of 48
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page44 of 48
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page45 of 48

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 8th day of January, 2010, I caused to be served on the

following counsel a true and correct copy of the foregoing via FedEx Express:

Kenneth C. Mennemeier Gordon Burns

Andrew W. Stroud Tamar Pachter
MENNEMEIER, GLASSMAN & OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
STROUD LLP GENERAL
980 9th Street, Suite 1700 1300 I Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 95814-2736 P.O Box. 944255
[email protected] Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Attorney
General
Attorneys for the Administration Defen- Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
dants

Dennis J. Herrera Elizabeth M. Cortez

Therese M. Stewart Judy W. Whitehurts
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY THE OFFICE OF CITY COUNSEL
City Hall, Room 234 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Admini-
One Dr. Carlon B. Goodlett Place stration
San Francisco, California 94102-4682 500 West Temple Street
[email protected] Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Dean C. Lo-
[email protected] gan
[email protected] Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk,
[email protected] County
[email protected] of Los Angeles

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor City

and County of San Francisco
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page46 of 48

Richard E Winnie Ted Olson

Brian E. Washington Matthew McGill
Claude F. Kolm Amir Tayrani
Manuel F. Martinez GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
THE OFFICE OF CITY COUNSEL LLP
1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Oakland, California 94612 Washington, DC 20036-5306
[email protected] T: (202) 955-8500
[email protected] F: (202) 467-0539
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant Patrick
O’Connell Theodore Boustrous, Jr.
Clerk Recorder of the County of Alemeda Christopher Dusseault
Theane Kapur
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90072-1512
T: (213) 229-7000
F: (213) 229-7520
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Ethan Dettmer
Enrique Monagas
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
T: (415) 393-8200
F: (415) 393-8306
[email protected]
 Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page47 of 48

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Theodore Uno
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
T: (510) 874-1000
F: (510) 874-1460
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kristin M.

Perry

I hereby certify that on the 8th day of January, 2010, I caused to be served on the

following counsel a true and correct copy of the foregoing via United States

Postal Service express mail overnight delivery:

Terry L. Thompson
LAW OFFICE OF TERRY L. THOMPSON
P.O. Box 1346
Alamo, CA 94507
T: (925) 855-1507
F: (925) 820-6035
[email protected]

Attorney for Defendant-Intervenor Hak-ShingWilliam Tam

Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document371-1 Filed01/08/10 Page48 of 48

s/Jesse Panuccio
Jesse Panuccio