Judge Appears Poised to Lift Seal on Same-Sex Marriage Trial Recording
U.S. District Judge William Orrick III told proponents for keeping the video recording of the 2008 trial over Proposition 8 sealed that he views the issue differently.
June 17, 2020 at 07:26 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge appears unconvinced that a video recording of the 2010 trial that rendered a 2008 ballot initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage in California unconstitutional should remain sealed.
In a Zoom videoconference Wednesday, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of the Northern District of California once again weighed in on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. In 2018, Orrick ruled that the video could be unsealed Aug. 12, a decade after the decision per local court rules, unless proponents could offer a compelling reason for it to remain confidential.
On behalf of the proponents of the Proposition 8 ballot measure, attorneys from Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., argued during the hearing Wednesday that judicial integrity requires the recording to stay under wraps. "Open promises a federal judge makes in court and in writing depends on enforcing those promises as they were made," said Cooper & Kirk's John Ohlendorf.
But Orrick had heard that all before.
"I get your argument—it's the same one you made in 2018, and it plays to something that matters hugely to the court, obviously," the judge said. "But I view it differently."
The U.S. Supreme Court barred former U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California, who presided over the trial, to publicly broadcast the proceedings. Instead, he recorded them for the purpose of use in chambers, and sealed the video sua sponte.
Ohlendorf had argued that if Walker had really tied his promise to a 10-year period, it would be a very different case.
"If he had made clear his promise was good for 10 years only, we would have immediately taken action to appeal to the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Ninth Circuit," he said. "The video would not have been made and there would not have been a possibility for disclosure after 10 years."
Ohlendorf said that's how the Ninth Circuit also interpreted Walker's promises.
"If they understood Judge Walker's decision in that way, this case would not be back before me," Orrick said. The appeals court did not grant a "forever imprimatur," he said.
Christopher Dusseault of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs said that judicial integrity is an extremely important factor, but that the specific concerns the Ninth Circuit focused on are no longer a concern given the 10 years that have passed.
"Let people see what Walker did—the length of time he let them probe to poke holes," Dusseault said. "Judicial integrity is well served by unsealing the trial video."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEx-Girardi Keese CFO Christopher Kamon, Shackled and Sniffing, Pleads Guilty
3 minute readGirardi's Lawyers Move for New Trial: He Doesn't Remember Jury's Verdict
6 minute read'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250