April 21, 2011
h/t to Kathleen for the Scribd link
By Adam Bink
Today, the proponents of Prop 8 filed a response to the Olson/Boies/Boutrous motion to unseal video recordings of the trial (as well as other briefs such as that filed by City/County of San Francisco).
Proponents’ arguments center on:
1) Whether or not the Supreme Court’s order extends merely to live streaming in federal courthouses, or all video dissemination beyond. Plaintiffs and, it appears, The Media Coalition argue that the order extended only to concurrent live streaming, while opponents argue it extends to all broadcasts in any form during and after the district court trial.
2) Countering the First Amendment argument (right to recordings) advanced by plaintiffs by noting that the Supreme Court has already dismissed this argument in the original ruling, and that the plaintiffs now appear to be saying that the Supreme Court is violating the First Amendment.
3) Arguing that witness intimidation could still happen as a result of the release of the video, and that certain people only agreed to testify as a result of Judge Walker’s reassurance that video recordings would remain private.
4) Arguing, oddly, that plaintiffs have no use for the recordings, and citing the City/County of San Francisco brief to make this point:
Appellees ask in the alternative that they be allowed to retain theircopies of the trial recordings. Opp. 10-11. But now that the trial is over and theappeal has been briefed and argued to this Court, there is no reason to anticipatethat Appellees will need access to the trial recordings again. Indeed, San Franciscoconfesses that “[n]o party currently seeks to use the video footage.” S.F. Opp. 1.
5) Their conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated in our opening brief, the Court should order that former judge Walker cease further disclosures of the trialrecordings in this case, or any portion thereof, and that all copies of the trialrecordings in the possession, custody, or control of any party to this case or former judge Walker be returned promptly to the Court and held by the court clerk underseal. The Court should also deny Appellees’ motion to unseal the trial recordings.
The full brief can be found here: