1 2 3 4 5
Mark V. Boennighausen (State Bar No. 142147) ELLENBERG & HULL 4 North Second Street, Suite 1240 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 998-8500 Fax: (408) 998-8503 E-mail:
[email protected] Attorneys Amicus Curiae Huttlinger Alliance F or Education
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
BULLIS CHARTER SCHOOL, Petitioner
11 12
v. 13
14 15
LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LOST ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT; and TIM JUSTUS, in his capacity as District Superintendent,
16
Respondents, 17
CASE NO. 1-09-CV-144569
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: March 21,2014 Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Socrates Manoukian Dept. 19
18 19 20 21
22 23 24
25 26
27 28 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION TO DISMISS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2
PAGE
3 I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
4
5 A.
The Alliance ............................................................................................................ 3
B.
BCS and Its Board Chairman Moore Actively Participates In Public Debate About Charter School Issues Including BCS Using Moore's Video Image On The Internet ............................................................................................................. 3
C.
David Cortright And His CPRA Request To LASD For Copies Depositions Of Individuals At The Center Of A Request By BCS for More Than $1 Million In Taxpayer Funds ...................................................................................... 5
6
7 8 9 10 III.
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6
11 A.
The CPRA Requires That The Public Be Allowed To Receive A Copy Of The Depositions Held By Public Entities Such As LASD and BCS ...................... 6
B.
While The Discovery Statutes Are Inapplicable And The CPRA Controls, There Is No Basis To Not Allow The Public To Have a Videotape Copy of These Depositions As Such An Order Would Be An Unconstitutional Prior Restraint In Violation of the First Amendment ....................................................... 8
12 13 14 15
IV.
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 10
16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION TO DISMISS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
PAGE
3
Cases 4
City ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1083 .......................................... 2, 7 5
County ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court (2012),211 Cal. App. 4th 57, 63 ................................ 2, 8 6
County ofSanta Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301, 1335 (2009) ............................ 8 7
Daily v. Superior Court (1935) 4 Cal.App.2 nd 127, 134 ................................................................. 1
8
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) ......................................................................... 8 9
Hurvitz v. Hoejjlin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232 ......................................................................... 2, 9 10
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1987) 485 U.S. 46, 55-56 ................................................................ 8 11
San Francisco Unified v. First Student Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1238 ........................... 2 12
Statutes 13 California Code of Civil Procedure §2017.020 ........................................................................... 7, 8 14 California Code of Civil Procedure §2025.420 ........................................................................... 7, 8 15
Other Authorities 16 California Public Records Act, Government Code §§ 6250 et seq ................................................. 1 17 Gov't Code §6250 ........................................................................................................................... 6 18 Gov't Code §6253(a) ....................................................................................................................... 7 19 Gov't Code §6253(b) ...................................................................................................................... 7 20 Gov't Code § 6257.5 ........................................................................................................................ 8 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION ii TO DISMISS
1
The Huttlinger Alliance for Education (the "Alliance") submits this brief in
2
opposition to petitioner's Bullis Charter School's ("BCS" or "petitioner") motion for
3
protective order. While not a formal party to this action, this Court (Judge Lucas),
4
previously granted Amicus status to the Alliance in this action (Register No. 0210-000) as
5
well as a second action filed by BCS (Case No; 1-12-CV-232187). In the 2012 action, the
6
Alliance provided a brief opposing an effort by BCS to stifle public examination of its
7
conduct. 1 The Alliance also participated in BCS' s second ex parte appearance, held on
8
March 3, 2014, in front of Judge Overton, where BCS sought to dramatically expand the
9
scope of this Court's earlier order, by preventing any public viewing of the video
10
depositions at issue in this case. 2
11
As such, the Alliance submits it can properly represent the interests of Mr. Cortright
12
and the public at large in securing their full rights under the California Public Records Act,
13
Government Code §§ 6250 et seq. ("CPRA"), as well as their free speech rights guaranteed
14
by the United States and California constitutions.
15
I.
16
INTRODUCTION
BCS Board Chairman Ken Moore is the public face ofBCS. As just one example, in
17
January 2014, BCS posted a promotional video and featured it on the front page of its
18
website and on Facebook. That video includes multiple clips of Mr. Moore speaking on
19
camera and extolling the virtues ofBCS, and remains on the BCS website to this day. BCS
20
omitted this fact from its ex parte application, violating a basic tenant of ex parte practice
21
that full disclosure of the facts and the law is mandatory. See Daily v. Superior Court (1935)
22
4 Cal.App.2nd 127, 134 (explaining "It was the duty of each of them, as officers of the court,
23 24 25 26 27 28
1 BCS lost this motion it brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, both at the trial court level per an order issued by Judge Lucas and on appeal as the Sixth District Court summarily dismissed BCS' s effort to reverse the order. See http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=6&doc_id=2041272&doc_no= H039442 2 See generally, Los Altos School District's Memorandum n Response to BCS motion, filed March 10,2014, p.3:1-13.
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION TO DISMISS 1
1
to speak and to make to the court full disclosure of the facts when the ex parte motion was
2
presented"). Blatantly violating its duty of full disclosure, BCS instead misled this Court,
3
claiming that Mr. Moore had limited "the dissemination of [his] image[] due to privacy
4
concerns" and that "he does not allow his place of employment, nor any of the boards he is
5
associated with, to post his likeness ... " BCS Ex Parte Application for TPO at 3, 6.
6
Further, BCS failed to disclose to the Court that the real party in interest, David Cortright,
7
had specifically asked BCS' s counsel to include his email in its papers stating his position, a
8
position that referenced the video footage of Mr. Moore's "image" and "likeness" featured
9
on the Internet by BCS itself. In addition, BCS neglected to inform the Court of the
10
controlling statutory scheme, which is the CPRA. Instead, BCS posited this matter as a
11
discovery dispute between LASD and BCS. This tactic is a transparent end around Mr.
12
Cortright's statutory and constitutional rights, and all members of the public's right, to
13
receive a complete copy of the deposition videos under the custodial control of a public
14
entity such as LASD. City a/Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1083.
15
This CPRA right is sacrosanct, regardless of the intended use of the public records.
16
County a/Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2012), 211 Cal. App. 4th 57, 63. Indeed, to
17
attempt to restrict Mr. Cortright, or any member of the public, from using public records as
18
19
they see fit runs afoul of First Amendment jurisprudence. See San Francisco Unified v. First Student Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1238 (overturning trial court order and
20
discussing free speech prior restraint concerns) Finally, while the discovery statutes are inapplicable to the CPRA issue before the
21 22
Court, the reasoning for the protective order also fails as a matter of law. There is no legal
23
grounds to restrict access to the videotapes, especially in light of the governing First
24
Amendment prior restraint standard. See Hurvitz v. Hoejjlin (2000) 84 Cal.AppAth 1232. Accordingly, the Alliance respectfully requests that the Court deny BCS's attempt to
25
26
stifle the public's right of access and free speech.
27
IIIII
28
IIIII BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION TO DISMISS 2
1 2 3
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.
The Alliance
The Alliance is a public advocacy group formed in June 2012, in part, because of the
4
conduct ofBCS in the local community, especially its desire to cause of the closure of a
5
local high performing school operated by LASD to the detriment of disadvantaged students
6
in the district. Upon its formation, the Alliance attracted the support of roughly 1,000
7
community members.
8 9 10
B.
BCS and Its Board Chairman Moore Actively Participates In Public Debate About Charter School Issues Including BCS Using Moore's Video Image On The Internet
BCS is a controversial school in the local community. It is the subject of repeated
11
press articles and much public debate. One article written by Bloomberg in 2011 described
12
the school as: Taxpayers Get Billed for Kids ofMillionaires at Charter School 3
13
It also is apparent that the school regularly skirts the law when it comes to its
14
operation. The Santa Clara County Office Of Education ("SCCOE") cited BCS twice for
15
having an illegal application process. The most recent citation, issued on February 20,2014,
16
also chastised the purportedly public charter school for not complying with California's
17
open government law -- the Brown Act. 4
18
BCS expends substantial resources seeking to sway public opinion about its
19
operations and purported reason for exsitence. It has a retained a professional public
20
relations firm at a cost of$300,000.5 BCS also aggressively attacks any person or entity tha
21
disagrees with its position, including this Court. For example, when this Court (Judge
22
Lucas) issued a $51,000 discovery sanction against BCS for refusing to provide information
23
about the source of money used to pay for its serial lawsuits, BCS attorney Arturo Gonzalez
24
25
26 27 28
3 Request of Judicial Notice ("RJN") 1, Declaration of Mark V. Boennighausen Filed In Opposition to BCS Motion to Dismiss ("Boennighausen Dec"), ~ 3, Exhibit "A." 4 Declaration of David Cortright in Support of Opposition to Motion For Protective Order ~"Cortright Declaration"), ~ 4, Exhibits "A" and "B". Cortright Dec. ~ 5
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION TO DISMISS 3
1
responded in a newspaper article: "The order is egregious and wrong. It's Monopoly
2
money. They will never see it.,,6
3
The attacks on anyone who question BCS in public also can come with the threat of
4
litigation against volunteer community members. 7 For example, it appears that BCS
5
contemplated legal action against David Cortright for expressing opposing views, even prior
6
to initiating this motion. 8 Despite its secretive conduct, BCS is a public entity under the eyes of the law9 and its
7 8
public face is Chairman of the Board Ken Moore. He is a strident partisan voice in the
9
community. In response to one LASD public facilities offer to BCS, he stated: "This is an
10
arrogant, defiant offer from LASD Trustees that brazenly ignores the law ... ".10 He also
11
characterized declarations filed in this Court by local community members explaining the
12
practices at BCS that violated the law as: "It's really an opinion piece by folks who are not a
13
party to the case ... These are the same baseless accusations that people have been making
14
for the past year at the county level[. ]"11 And in addition to chairing the public meetings of the BCS board on a monthly basis,
15 16
Chairman Moore has convened and chaired public community meetings to sway public
17
opinion.12 And most remarkably given the purported grounds for its motion, BCS published
18
and maintained on the Internet a video, including substantial video of Chairman Moore, well
19
before filing this motion.13 And the image of Chairman Moore was far from a secret even if
20
this video is ignored, with anybody being able to find his image through a simple Google
21
search. 14
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
RJN 1; Boennighausen Dec. ~ 5, Exhibit "C." RJN 2; Declaration of Elena Shea In Support of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ("Shea Declaration") , ~~ 6 -13. 8Cortright Dec. ~20, Exhibit "H." 9 BCS concedes it is a public entity with every legal filings, when it asserts that it is "Fee Exempt Per Govt. Code 6103" as it claims a public entity waiver of court filing fees. 10 RJN 1. Boennighausen Dec. ~ 4, Exhibit "B" 11 RJN 1. Boennighausen Dec. ~ 6, Exhibit "D" 12 Cortright Dec. ~~ 6 - 8, Exhibits "c" and "D" 13 Cortright Dec. ~ 8, Exhibits "c" and "D." 14 RJN 3. Internet December 12,2013 Blog Posting "BCS In Context" containing an image of Chairman Moore. 6 7
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION 4 TO DISMISS
C.
1 2
David Cortright And His CPRA Request To LASD For Copies Depositions Of Individuals At The Center Of A Request By BCS for More Than $1 Million In Taxpayer Funds.
BCS characterization of Mr. Cortright and speculation about him in its ex parte
3
4
application is inaccurate (and irrelevant). Mr. Cortright is an active member of the local
5
community with a keen interest in educational issues. He is also a former candidate for a
6
SCCOE board seat who received 25,000 votes in the 2012 election.
15
7
A keen follower of local education issues, Mr. Cortright became aware that BCS was
8
requesting more than $1 million in taxpayer funds for legal fees. BCS' s fee motion and the
9
basis for that motion and the basis for the fees became part of a heated battle between BCS
10
and LASD--a battle which led to the $51,000 sanctions award against BCS discussed above.
11
As part of discovery related to the motion, Mr. Moore and Mr. Spector's depositions were
12
taken because they were witnesses at the center of the dispute and had submitted documents
13
and testimony in support of the fee motion. 16 Accordingly, as was his right as a member of the public, Mr. Cortright made a CPRA
14 15
request to LASD to provide him a copy of the depositions, including the video portion, of
16
Mr. Moore and Mr. Spector. As discussed below, the CPRA provides that a public entity
17
such as LASD and BCS must allow a party to obtain a copy of public materials, and
18
applicable case law holds that a deposition is not exempt from production. 17 In response to this request, BCS ignored the applicable law and sought to restrict Mr.
19 20
Cortright's access, as well as all members of the public. As is clear from its ex parte
21
application, BCS came to this Court because of Mr. Cortright's CPRA request. Yet BCS
22
failed to include Mr. Cortright as a party in its motion. Remarkably, BCS also failed to alert
23
the Court that Mr. Cortright had requested an opportunity to be heard. Even more
24
25 26 27 28
Cortright Dec. ~3. RJN, 4 LASD's Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support of Motion for Private Attorney General Fees ("LASD Memorandum") (pages 3 - 9 of this pleading provides an overview of the underlying attorney fee dispute between BCS and LASD) 17 Cortright Dec. ~~ 9 -10. 15 16
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION 5 TO DISMISS
1
disturbing, BCS refused to even present to the Court Mr. Cortright's e-mail explaining his
2
position. 18
3
Subsequent to the Court issuing a TPO on an incomplete record and without any
4
member of public participating, BCS sought an order restricting all video viewing of the
5
videotape depositions through a subsequent ex parte application on March 3, 2014. Judge
6
Overton refused to grant such relief in light of objections by Mr. Cortright and the Alliance,
7
who participated at the hearing. The parties then stipulated to allow viewings to go forward
8
by the public. BCS and the District and the real parties in interest then moved the hearing
9
date to allow the Court to hear from Mr. Cortright and the public.
10
III.
ARGUMENT.
A.
11
The CPRA Requires That The Public Be Allowed To Receive A Copy Of The Depositions Held By Public Entities Such As LASD and BCS
12
BCS's motion's aim is plain: it was brought to prevent LASD from complying with
13 14
the law in responding to Mr. Cortright's CPRA request. Thus, this "protective order"
15
motion has nothing to do with discovery between the parties to this case, LASD and BCS,
16
and everything to do with the public's right of access to the video recordings ofnon-
17
confidential depositions.
18
The CPRA is a sunshine statute that allows California citizens to monitor the
19
operations of public entities, like LASD and BCS, and the people who run them, by being
20
able to inspect and copy records. Thus, the CPRA was enacted to codify the principle that "access to information
21
22
concerning the conduct of th~ people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of
23
every person in this state." Gov't Code §6250. The CPRA safeguards "the accountability
24
of government to the public, for secrecy is antithetical to a democratic system of
25
'government of the people, by the people [and] for the people.'" San Gabriel Tribune v
26
Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 3d 762, 772 (1983). This principle also is enshrined in the
27 28
18
Cortright Dec.
~~
11 - 15, Exhibits "C," "E" and "F."
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION 6 TO DISMISS
1
California Constitution, which provides that "[t]he people have the right of access to
2
information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of
3
public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public
4
scrutiny." Cal. Const., art I, §3 (b)( 1).
5
The CPRA requires "local agencies" such as LASD to provide access to public
6
records upon request. With respect to inspections, the PRA provides that "[p]ublic records
7
are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state and local agency and
8
every person has a right to inspect any public record," subject to certain qualifications.
9
Gov't Code §6253(a). And importantly for the purposes of this motion, if, in addition to, or
10
instead of a request for inspection, a person requests a copy of records that reasonably
11
describes an identifiable record or records that are not exempt from disclosure based on
12
certain specific and narrow exemptions set forth in the CPRA, the agency "shall make the
13
records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of
14
duplication." Gov't Code §6253(b).
15
City ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1083 establishes the
16
inapplicability of the discovery statutes and the applicability of the CPRA to the depositions
17
at issue here. In City ofLos Angeles, the public agency sought to restrict public access to
18
nine depositions, arguing among other things, that depositions were covered by the Civil
19
Discovery Act and that allowing access to them would violate the privacy rights of the
20
witnesses. The appellate court soundly rejected these arguments, including the argument
21
that allowing such access would create a "chilling effect." Id. at 1090- 92.
\
22
Accordingly, the entire legal basis for BCS' s motion fails. This is not a discovery
23
matter between LASD and BCS and thus California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2017.020
24
and 2025.420, the sole statutory authority cited by BCS (February 21, 2014 BCS Ex Parte
25
Application for TPO p.:5 :4-22), are inapplicable.
26
Finally, BCS's attacks on Mr. Cortright are not only false (as discussed above), but
27
they are irrelevant. Under the CPRA the reason that Mr. Cortright, or any member of the
28
public, has for accessing or copying the requested public records is irrelevant. See Gov't BRlEF OF AMICUS CURlAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION 7 TO DISMISS
1
Code § 6257.5 (no limitation on access to public record based on the purpose for which the
2
record is requested); see generally County ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court, 211 Cal. App.
3 4th 57, 63 (2012) (citing section 6257.5 and holding that the fact that the petitioner may be 4
seeking public records to assist her colleagues in connection with a pending action is not
5
relevant to the CPRA action); see also County ofSanta Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.
6
App. 4th 1301, 1335 (2009) (citing §6257.5). Thus, BCS's unsupported speculation that Mr.
7
Cortright wants to use a videotape to make fun of Mr. Moore or Mr. Spector provides no
8
support for its effort to deprive the public of its legal right of unfettered access to their
9
deposition videos.
10
Indeed, a parody use, even if it were to occur, is specifically protected by the United
11
States Constitution's First Amendment and BCS does not have right to censor such speech.
12
See Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1987) 485 U.S. 46, 55-56.
13
As the Supreme Court explained in Hustler, supra:
14
[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.
15 16 17 18
Id. (quoting FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)) The CPRA controls this matter. The law is clear that Mr. Cortright has the absolute
19
right to receive a copy of these videotape depositions, as long as he pays the court reporting
20
firm for them.
21
B.
22 23 24
While The Discovery Statutes Are Inapplicable And The CPRA Controls, There Is No Basis To Not Allow The Public To Have a Videotape Copy of These Depositions As Such An Order Would Be An Unconstitutional Prior Restraint In Violation of the First Amendment
As established above, CCP §§ 2017.020 and 2025.420 do not govern this dispute as
25
Mr. Cortright is not seeking discovery. He did not serve a subpoena. He is not a party to
26
lawsuit between BCS and LASD. But even ifhe was, there are no grounds to deprive Mr.
27
Cortright of his statutorily guaranteed right to a copy of both the transcript and videotapes
28
the depositions.
0
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION TO DISMISS 8
1
First, section 2017.020 governs the scope of discovery and whether such scope is
2
beyond what is reasonable. Here, there is no discovery request at issue. The depositions are
3
complete and Mr. Cortright is not seeking discovery. Rather he is seeking public records
4
under the CPRA of discovery already taken. Section 2025.240 is similar, as the enumerated
5
categories concern issues associated with the taking a deposition, or its associated use in the
6
litigation pending before the Court. None of those issues are present in this motion, as Mr.
7
Cortright made a CPRA request.
8 9
Second, the alleged factual basis for this motion is inconsistent with a discovery protective order motion. BCS concedes that there is nothing secret in the depositions as it
10
relates to the content. There is nothing secret about the images of Mr. Spector and Mr.
11
Moore. They appear at BCS board meetings, and BCS promotes itself and Mr. Moore
12
through video images. The videotapes have already had public viewings. The sole basis for
13
the motion is the purported fear of what members of the public might do with a video copy
14
in exercising their free speech rights, such as Mr. Moore fearing a parody using his video
15
image will cause him embarrassment.
16
Hence, the clear purpose of this motion is to restrict the free speech rights of David
17
Cortright and all other members of the public in any attempt to use a video copy of the
18
deposition.
19
This purpose is constitutionally impermissible.
20
Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Ca1.App.4th 1232 is directly on point. In Hurvitz, a
21
trial court judge sealed court records and barred disclosure of information. Among the
22
reasons the judge cited for the order were: (1) the privacy rights of both public and private
23
individuals; (2) the need as to protect the patient-physician privilege held by those
24
individuals; and, (3) the possibility of the information causing prejudice to potential jurors.
25
Nonetheless, the appellate court reversed, finding such an order an unconstitutional prior
26
restraint on free speech.
27
28
The Court explained the First Amendment analysis a trial court must perform if it seeks to restrict access and use of information as follows: BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION 9 TO DISMISS
As our Supreme Court explained over 100 years ago, "The wording of this section is terse and vigorous, and its meaning so plain that construction is not needed. The right of the citizen to freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments is unlimited, but he is responsible at the hands of the law for an abuse of that right. He shall have no censor over him to whom he must apply for permission to speak, write, or publish, but he shall be held accountable to the law for what he speaks, what he writes, and what he publishes." [citation]
1
2
3 4
5
Orders which restrict or preclude a citizen from speaking in advance are known as "prior restraints," and are disfavored and presumptively invalid. [citation] Gag orders on trial participants are unconstitutional unless (1) the speech sought to be restrained poses a clear and present danger or serious and imminent threat to a protected competing interest; (2) the order is narrowly tailored to protect that interest; and (3) no less restrictive alternatives are available. [citation]
6
7 8 9 10
Id at 1241.
11
Applying this standard, there is no possible legal basis to restrict the possession or
12
use of a video copy of a non-confidential deposition through a court order. In the extremely
13
unlikely event that there is a legally impermissible use of the video copies, BCS or the
14
witnesses can petition the courts for redress at that point. What the law does not allow is a
15
prior restraint of Mr. Cortright's or other citizens' free speech rights through a groundless
16
motion for protective order restricting them from obtaining a public record prior to even
17
exercising any free speech rights solely based on what they might do with the videotapes.
18
IV.
19
CONCLUSION.
Based on the foregoing, the BCS temporary protective order should be dissolved and
20
the right of Mr. Cortright, and all members of the the public, to unfettered access the
21
videotape deposition as provided by the CPRA be unimpeded.
22
Dated: March 11, 2014
23 24 25
26
Mark V. Boennighausen Attorneys Amicus Curiae Huttlinger Alliance F or Education
27 28 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUTTLINGER ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION IN OPPOSITION TO BCS MOTION TO DISMISS 10
