(1 of 198) Case: 20-16375, 07/16/2020, ID: 11755480, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 1 of 29 NO. 20-16375 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, KQED, INC., Intervenor-Appellee, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor, et al., Defendants-Appellees, DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. and PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda, et al., Defendants. Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 WHO (Honorable William Orrick) INTERVENORS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL *RELIEF NEEDED BY AUGUST 12, 2020* Charles J. Cooper David H. Thompson Peter A. Patterson John D. Ohlendorf COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 220-9600 (202) 220-9601 (fax) [email protected] Attorneys for Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants (2 of 198) Case: 20-16375, 07/16/2020, ID: 11755480, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 10 I. PROPONENTS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THEIR APPEAL. ........................................................................................... 10 A. The Compelling Interest in Judicial Integrity Continues To Require Maintaining the Seal. ............................................................. 11 B. None of the Doctrines Relied Upon by Respondents or the District Court Require Disclosure of the Videotapes. ......................... 13 1. The Common-Law Right of Access. ........................................ 13 2. Local Rule 79-5. ........................................................................ 16 3. The First Amendment. .............................................................. 18 II. PROPONENTS WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED ABSENT A STAY. ........................................................................................................ 19 A. Unless a Stay Is Entered, Proponents’ Right To Appeal Will Be Vitiated. ............................................................................................... 19 B. Unless a Stay Is Entered, the Integrity of the Judicial System Will Be Irreparably Harmed. ....................................................................... 20 III. THE REMAINING EQUITABLE FACTORS FAVOR GRANTING A STAY PENDING APPEAL. ..................................................................... 21 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 22 i (3 of 198) Case: 20-16375, 07/16/2020, ID: 11755480, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 3 of 29 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................ 10 Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 818 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2016) ....................... 13 Artukovic v. Rison, 784 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................. 19 California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................... 21 City & Cty. of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 944 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 21 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 1107 (2010) .................................... 4, 5, 12, 14, 19 In re Motions of Dow Jones & Co., 142 F.3d 496 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ....................... 14 In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 14 Momeni v. Chertoff, 521 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................ 17 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) .............................. 13, 14, 18 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ...................................................................... 20 Perry v. Brown, 667 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2012) ........ 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ......................................................................................... 2, 6, 15 Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. F.C.C., 316 U.S. 4 (1942) ...................................... 19 United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 1996) ................................ 15, 16 Valley Broad. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 798 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1986) ................................................................ 13, 14, 18 Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ............................................................................ 19 Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015) ........................................ 11, 20 Constitutional Provisions and Rules CAL. CONST. art. I, § 7.5 ............................................................................................. 3 N.D. CAL. L.R. 77-3 ................................................................................................. 14 N.D. CAL. L.R. 79-5(a)............................................................................................. 17 N.D. CAL. L.R. 79-5(g) ................................................................................ 16, 17, 18 ii (4 of 198) Case: 20-16375, 07/16/2020, ID: 11755480, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 4 of 29 Other Judge Vaughn Walker, History of Cameras in the Courtroom (Feb. 18, 2011), available at https://goo.gl/ZG8qji ........................................................................ 6 iii (5 of 198) Case: 20-16375, 07/16/2020, ID: 11755480, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 5 of 29 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 8(a), Movants—the official proponents of California’s ballot “Proposition 8,” who intervened to unsuccessfully defend the constitutionality of that provision in a trial held in 2010 (“Proponents”)— respectfully move for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s Order (attached as Exhibit 1) requiring the public disclosure and dissemination of video recordings that a panel of this Court unanimously held in 2010 must be kept under seal because their disclosure would necessarily cause grave damage to “the integrity of the judicial process.” Perry v. Brown, 667 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9th Cir. 2012). The disclosure of the videotapes at issue—a recording of the 2012 trial over Proposition 8—would seriously harm that interest because the judge presiding over the trial, former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, unequivocally promised on at least two separate occasions that the recordings would never be released to the public, and the attorneys, parties, and witnesses participating in the trial “reasonably relied on [those] specific assurances” in withdrawing their objection to the creation of the recording. Id. at 1084. Absent action from this Court, the recordings will be released on August 12, 2020, thereby forever vitiating any ability of Movants to appeal from the district court’s order and irrevocably harming “the sanctity of the judicial process.” Id. at 1081. 1 (6 of 198) Case: 20-16375, 07/16/2020, ID: 11755480, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 6 of 29 Pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 8(a), Proponents moved the district court to stay its ruling unsealing the recordings, but the court denied that request, reasoning that Proponents “are in a position to swiftly seek a stay of the release from the Ninth Circuit.” App.5. The video recording at issue exists for one reason and one reason only: Judge Walker’s solemn assurances, in specific response to Proponents’ firm objection to the recording of the trial, that he was making the video recording solely for his use in chambers in crafting a decision. As this Court held in rebuffing an earlier effort to access and broadcast the recording, Judge Walker both before and after trial made “unequivocal assurances that the video recording at issue would not be accessible to the public,” Perry, 667 F.3d at 1085—representing, indeed, that any such risk “had been eliminated,” id. (quoting Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 944 (N.D. Cal. 2010)). This commitment was compelled by binding law and “by the Supreme Court’s ruling in this very case.” Id. at 1087-88. This Court recognized all of this eight years ago, holding in a unanimous opinion by Judge Reinhardt that because of Judge Walker’s repeated and solemn assurances, “the integrity of the judicial system” demanded that “the recording must remain under seal.” Perry, 667 F.3d 1087. While the court below has rejected that contention—ordering that the recordings be unsealed on August 12, 2020—it was wrong to do so. None of the doctrines Respondents have cited as entitling them to 2 (7 of 198) Case: 20-16375, 07/16/2020, ID: 11755480, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 7 of 29 access the trial tapes apply here; and even if they did, the interest in judicial integrity is no less compelling now than it was eight years ago—and the harm that would be caused by releasing the recordings no less grave. Accordingly, Proponents are likely to prevail on the merits, if they