Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al, No. 3:2009cv02292 - Document 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed byPaul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 314 ) (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 1/5/2010)
Download PDF
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 348 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document348 Filed01/05/10 Page1 of 2 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP LAWYERS A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS __________ 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94105-2933 (415) 393-8200 January 5, 2010 Direct Dial Client Matter No. (415) 393-8292 T 36330-00001 Fax No. (415) 374-8444 The Honorable Joseph C. Spero United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court for the Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. C 09-2292 VRW Dear Magistrate Judge Spero: I write pursuant to the Court s Orders of December 30, Doc #332, and earlier today, Doc #343, and pursuant to this Court s Local Rule 7-3(d), to bring the Court s attention to the amended opinion issued in this matter by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. Footnote 12 of the amended opinion states that the Court s First Amendment holding is limited to private, internal communications regarding formulation of strategy and messages. It certainly does not apply to document or messages conveyed to the electorate at large, discrete groups of voters or individual voters for purposes such as persuasion, recruitment or motivation activities beyond the formulation of strategy and messages. Similarly, communications soliciting active support from actual or potential Proposition 8 supporters are unrelated to the formulation of strategy and messages. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 09-17241, amended slip op. at n.12 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2010) (emphasis in the original). The Court offered a specific example of this limitation on its holding [b]y way of illustration : Plaintiffs produced at oral argument a letter from Bill Tam, one of Proposition 8 s official proponents, urging friends to really work to pass Prop 8. A copy of Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document348 Filed01/05/10 Page2 of 2 The Honorable Joseph C. Spero January 5, 2010 Page 2 the letter is appended to this opinion. Mr. Tam s letter is plainly not a private, internal formulation of strategy or message and is thus far afield from the kinds of communications the First Amendment privilege protects. Id. A true and correct copy of the Ninth Circuit s amended opinion, and the appendix to that opinion, are attached to this letter for the Court s convenience. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ethan D. Dettmer Ethan D. Dettmer Counsel for Plaintiffs cc: All Counsel